Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON AND PRESTON CEMETERY BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 25 February.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 February.

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 February at 7 o'clock.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisoners (Remand)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently on remand; what proportion this represents of the total prison population; and what steps he has recently taken to advise magistrates on remand policy.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): On 31 December 1987 the unsentenced prison population was about 10,480, not counting 474 mostly unsentenced prisoners held in police cells. That was just over 22 per cent. of the total prison population. My right hon. Friend cannot advise magistrates on their decisions on bail, which they take under the Bail Act 1976. He has called attention to the desirability of reducing the remand population and of providing information to magistrates in making decisions on bail.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend will be aware of the seriousness of the position, given the figures released yesterday showing the number of people held on remand in police cells. Is he aware that, on a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison two weeks ago by the all-party penal affairs group, we were told by an officer that one person has been remanded in custody on the charge of not possessing a bus ticket? What plans has my hon. Friend for a feasibility study within his Department to discuss tagging as an alternative to remanding in custody for non-convicted prisoners?

Mr. Patten: It is not for me to comment on an individual case. The interpretation of the 1976 Act is a matter for the bench or the judges involved. However, my hon. Friend has made a very interesting suggestion, which my right hon. Friend and I will consider.

Mr. Steinberg: Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that many prisoners held on remand who will eventually be found not guilty and released from prison are living in the most horrific conditions, with three in a cell, and having to slop out? Would it not be possible for the Home Secretary to examine the Scottish experience? In Scotland a prisoner must be brought to court within 110 days, or be released.

Mr. Patten: That is exactly what we are doing. My right hon. Friend has initiated some important experiments over the past year or so. We hope that by 1 April 1988 there will be limits on the length of time for which a prisoner cart be remanded, which will apply in the whole of Wales and in most of England. We also hope that within the next two years we shall have covered the whole of England.

Mr. Gale: In the light of the figures that my hon. Friend has given us, what consideration is the Department giving to the private building and management of remand prisons?

Mr. Patten: We are greatly constrained by the law in this respect, but we are very interested in the suggestion pur forward by my hon. Friend, and we are considering it.

Mr. Pike: What does the Minister think will happen when the poll tax legislation is introduced? Those who are found guilty will be able to obtain a refund for the time they were on remand, while those found innocent will have to pay the poll tax for the period during which they were in custody awaiting trial.

Mr. Patten: That question would probably be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Association of Chief Police Officers

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers; and what was discussed.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I met the president and senior officers of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 25 January. We discussed the problems caused by the need to accommodate prisoners in police cells and also crime prevention initiatives.

Mr. Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend convince chief police officers that calls for more manpower in the police, as in other public services, can be tolerated only in the context of greater efficiency and effectiveness and more modernisation and rationalisation?

Mr. Hurd: Chief officers are well aware of that fact. They know that, although we are in the middle of a further stage of expansion of police numbers in England and Wales, which are already a record, the applications that police authorities put in will be judged on the criterion that my hon. Friend mentions—whether they are making the best use of existing resources, for example, by employing civilians in jobs which they can do at about half the cost of a police officer.

Mr. Boyes: Nevertheless, is the Home Secretary aware that Northumbria's chief constable has carried out an exercise on his manpower needs and has determined that he needs an extra 529 police officers in order to police my constituency and those of my hon. Friends in Tyne and Wear? Does he also realise that if the chief constable uses the measure of serious offences per police officer, he needs an extra 800 police officers? Will the Home Secretary let me take a message back to the chief constable that he will agree to an extra manpower quota?

Mr. Hurd: The problem in Northumbria is not so much the manpower levels but the precept which the House approved on 8 February. I have looked into the matter, because I have had various representations about it. The maximum precepts for the four joint police authorities concerned, which the House approved on 8 February, should enable them broadly to maintain their present level of service if they get their sums right and take wise decisions.

Mr. Conway: When my right hon. Friend was discussing manpower requirements with the chief police officers, did he urge them, as he has done in the past, to make greater use of special constables, particularly in rural areas, because they can play a useful part, particularly in street patrols, and so ease the burden on regular police officers?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That issue did not come up at the meeting, but we believe that possibility to be so important that we held a special conference, presided over by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, designed to bring home to chief officers and others concerned the fact that special constables can be a real asset, and, in many places, are still under-used.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Home Secretary next meets the chief constable of West Yorkshire, will he put it to him that there is a responsibility placed upon him to stop the leaks, from the West Yorkshire constabulary of smears — such as the one in the Yorkshire Post in an article written by Mr. Roger Cross—against Mr. Stalker by linking him to the death or murder of a Sergeant Speed? Will he tell him to stop the leaks because they are unfair on Mr. Stalker?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anybody on smears and insinuations. The chief constable of West Yorkshire has handled himself with high distinction and professional care throughout the whole business and I reject any insinuation directed either at him or the members of his force.

Prison Services

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his response to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Session 1986–87, on contract, provision of prison services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We hope to publish the response just before or shortly after the Easter recess.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: In view of the high cost of keeping prisoners in police cells, will my hon. Friend give us some idea of his current thinking on keeping prisoners on remand while awaiting trial?

Mr. Hogg: It is highly undesirable that remand prisoners should be kept in police cells and we are doing our best to prevent that happening. We are tackling the problem in a variety of ways, including bail hostels, the building of new prisons, speeding up the process of trial and reminding courts, where proper and appropriate, of the provisions of the Bail Act.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the increasingly feckless and irresponsible action of prison officers, the only way that they will learn what we expect from them is if we take away their right to hold prisoners in custody? Therefore, will he consider carefully the great opportunities that are open for the privatisation of certain prison services?

Mr. Hogg: It is quite right that we should increase civilianisation where possible, and there are a number of functions ancillary to the prison service that can doubtless involve the private sector. There is already substantial private sector involvement in the construction of prisons. I would wish to postpone the wider issue of the management of the prisons until the response to the Select Committee has been made.

Immigration

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the proposal to end the right of intervention by hon. Members on immigration cases.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have received a few representations from Opposition Members since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 16 November during the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill. We believe that many hon. Members find the present arrangements unsatisfactory. We are therefore seeking a new arrangement which would provide a better service to hon. Members and their constituents. I hope within some weeks to put forward proposals for change, on which right hon. and hon. Members will, of course, have the opportunity to comment.

Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise that the right of MPs to intervene in such cases represents the last appeal for many families wishing to be reunited in this country? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including me, have brought justice to individuals who have every right to enter this country.

Mr. Renton: Yes, of course I understand that, but it is precisely to provide a better service for MPs and thus for their constituents that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are examining the possibility of bringing new proposals to the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are two sides to the coin. In answer to his letter of 14 October we have twice asked for further particulars—on 6 November and 11 February—so that we can trace the case. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not replied.

Mr. Hanley: When I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee I visited Lunar house and the ministerial correspondence unit at Harmondsworth. It became clear to me that, with more than 12,000 letters received by the Minister last year, he is being overburdened with unnecessary correspondence from hon. Members. Is it not inherent in hon. Members' responsibilities that they should not act merely as a filing tray or rubber stamp, but should consider carefully applications on immigration cases—particularly before they write to the Minister on routine matters?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend and recognise his expertise in these matters. I would say seriously that if we can reduce the casework backlog at Lunar house it will help MPs, because they will have fewer representations from constituents wondering what has happened to their cases.

Mr. Vaz: As there are 200,000 items of unopened mail at Lunar house, is it not undesirable that Members of Parliament should be made to deal with Croydon and face delays? Will the Minister tell the House that he will go out into the cities and provinces to speak to organisations that deal with immigration before he puts any proposals on this issue before the House?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has already done enough damage to Lunar house by arriving 45 minutes late on Monday last week for a meeting there which he had asked me to arrange. No sooner had he left Lunar house than he was running to the national newspapers to tell them about difficulties there. I shall not anticipate the

details of the proposals that we shall put before the House, the aim of which is to provide a better service for Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sayeed: Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine are most grateful to him for the able and considerate way in which he has responded to their problems and exercised his discretion?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff at Lunar house, who have to cope with literally hundred; of thousands of pieces of correspondence every year.

Mr. Randall: We look forward to the Minister's proposals for improving services to MPs. However, may I make it absolutely clear to him that MPs guard their rights jealously and that if those rights are weakened it will be immigrants who will lose, rather than MPs? Will the Minister be increasing the number of staff and the building space at Lunar house as part of the review to make sure that adequte services are provided to MPs?

Mr. Renton: I have many powers, but it is beyond me to increase the building space at Lunar house. The building is there and I cannot increase its size.
The Labour party must stop facing in two directions at once on this issue. Opposition Members cannot lecture us about the delays at Lunar house and, at the same time, vote against the changes that we introduced three weeks ago to remove 40,000 cases a year from Lunar house. That is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. Favell: Is it not a fact that those rights, which are so jealously guarded by Opposition Members, have caused enormous problems because Opposition Members have intervened on the flimsiest possible evidence in many immigration cases?

Mr. Renton: That is obviously correct. Of course we shall preserve the rights of Members of Parliament, but we wish to arrive at a better procedure to enable everyone—Members of Parliament, Ministers and Lunar house—to concentrate on the really urgent, difficult and, at times, desperate cases.

Salema Begum

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision on the request by Salema Begum, daughter of Mr. Gura Miah, to remain with her parents in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Renton: I wrote to the hon. Member on 12 February to say that following the satisfactory conclusion of inquiries by the immigration service, I have decided to allow Salema Begum to remain in this country with her parents.

Mr. Lamond: I thank the Minister for that answer. Although the case was lengthy—I think necessarily so—and the girl concerned and her family were put under considerable strain, I should, nevertheless, like to give my personal thanks to the Minister for exercising his discretion in that way and also put on record the thanks of the family.

Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I shall certainly pass on to the officials in my office and at Lunar house. However, I hope that the


hon. Gentleman can persuade some of the Cassandras on his Benches to realise that the Home Secretary and I are trying genuinely to improve immigration procedures.

Mr. Randall: Although my hon. Friends and I welcome the Minister's descision on that specific case, is he aware that it was based on DNA testing? When will the Minister stop dragging his feet and start to introduce a DNA testing service, which we believe should be free of charge to the poorer in our society?

Mr. Renton: I am aware that the result was based on DNA testing, because I took the decision myself. As I said to the House two days ago in the debate on the Immigration Bill, we now have the report on DNA in draft. We are showing it to the experts involved and once we have their approval of the detail, I shall lay a copy in the Library of the House.

Firearms

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present controls on the import of firearms into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the light of our review on firearms controls the Firearms (Amendment) Bill contains a provision whereby visitors to Great Britain will be required to obtain a permit if they wish to import a firearm or shotgun.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that we have harsher controls for the exporting of personal firearms, for use in international shooting competitions, for example, than we have for the importation of firearms? Should it not be the other way round?

Mr. Hogg: We thought that there were shortcomings in the legislation regarding the importation of firearms into this country and we have tried to cure those shortcomings by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister will be aware of my personal anxiety about the Common Market Council directive, approved in September last year, which affords member states — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am refreshing my memory — which affords member states the requisite guarantees for them to agree to abstain from police checks for the possession of weapons when internal Community frontiers are crossed. The Minister will also be aware of my concern that the Council's definition of firearms encompasses portable grenade launchers, portable rocket launchers and flamethrowers. Will he give the House an assurance today that Her Majesty's Government will not support that kind of directive in any way?

Mr. Hogg: The Government's view is that the proposed directive is misconcieved, not amenable to drafting improvements, and needs to be withdrawn or rejected.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that police man hours required to administer the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will double in the first year of its administration to 1,550,000? Will he ensure that if the Bill reaches the statute book in the way proposed resources will be made available to the police to administer its implications?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that there is no sound basis for supporting the calculation of hours put forward by my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly true that our proposals are broadly welcomed by the police service and by the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister satisfied that the proposals to which he has referred will not constitute an obstacle to those who wish to import weapons into the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes such as target shooting and game shooting?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Member makes a sound point. It is important that any checks that we impose should take account of legitimate sporting and commercial interests. In my judgment, clause 12 is correct in both regards.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern about the importation and sale of stun guns? Can he say whether any action by the Home Office is envisaged?

Mr. Hogg: The Bill will make a stun gun a prohibited weapon to which section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies.

Chorley Forensic Laboratory

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the scientists sacked or compulsorily retired from the Home Office laboratory in Chorley since 1979, giving the dates in each case.

Mr. John Patten: No scientific staff at the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Chorley have been dismissed or compulsorily retired since 1979.

Mr. Hood: Will the Minister investigate the allegations made in the House this week during an Adjournment debate that Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade, two of the principal witnesses in the Birmingham pub bombing appeal, conspired together during that appeal and even met in Mr. Reade's house?

Mr. Patten: Some extraordinary and bizarre allegations were made during that Adjournment debate earlier this week. The hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them. There were also attacks on individual named members of the judiciary, and even a most extraordinary suggestion that somehow I have been involved in covering up for the police and the judiciary for many years.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it not a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege for Opposition Members to accuse forensic scientists and those who serve the state of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, when such accusations have no justification whatsoever?

Mr. Patten: Those who come to the Chamber and make unfounded allegations should follow the sensible old rule of coughing up or shutting up. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. McCartney: Dr. Skuse is one of my constituents, and a near neighbour of mine. I am also concerned about the allegations in relation to the evidence at the trial and the subsequent allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is an honourable man who has taken a great deal of care to investigate the allegations
Whatever the Minister says, Dr. Skuse was dismissed from his employment. Is it not in the best interests of Dr.


Skuse and those who have been convicted on his evidence as a principal witness at a number of trials, for that evidence to be investigated to clarify the position for Dr. Skuse and for those who were charged and may have been wrongly found guilty? It is only fair, given the nature of the Birmingham trial and other significant trials—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking questions, but he is taking a rather long time.

Mr. Patten: Briefly in reply, I set out the circumstances surrounding Dr. Skuse's early retirement on the grounds of limited efficiency in my response to the Adjournment debate on Tuesday. Otherwise, I think that the extraordinary tissue of allegations and suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) should not be considered worthy of the attention of the House.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that although any hon. Member rightly should pursue issues in the House, using character assassination to pursue an issue is immoral, improper and unjust? Dr. Skuse, like anyone else, deserves justice. Just because some people rightly have been convicted after a 28-day appeal, for any hon. Member to try to use Dr. Skuse to get the case reopened is absolutely improper and dishonourable.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Court of Appeal had before it all the evidence. Indeed, Dr. Skuse was a witness before it and gave evidence for some three and a half days. I believe that some Opposition Members should be extremely cautious before they make totally unfounded allegations.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that on 29 November, while the appeal was being heard, Doctor Skuse was to be found at the home of another principal crown witness, Superintendent George Reade at Rugeley, Staffordshire? Dr. Skuse was 80 miles away from his home in Wigan. What does the Minister think that they were discussing if it was not the trial? Was it a football match or the weather?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is becoming more and more bizarre. He made those allegations in his speech during the Adjournment debate on Tuesday night. It has been a consistent theme of the hon. Gentleman to make allegations without evidence and without foundation.

Prisons (Riot Costs)

Mr. John Townend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost to Her Majesty's Government, including staff overtime and damage to buildings, of riots in Her Majesty's prisons over the last three years.

Mr. Hurd: The total estimated cost of the damage that occurred during the riots in April and May 1986 was about £5·5 million. Other serious disturbances by inmates in 1986 and 1987—at Risley, Wymott and Dartmoor—resulted in damage of about £45,400. Information on staff overtime costs arising as a result of serious disturbances is not readily available.

Mr. Townend: I think that it is regrettable that the Government do not know the total cost of the prison riots. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the known cost is a significant sum and is a waste of taxpayers' money that

could be better spent on the Health Service? In future, will my right hon. Friend get tougher at an earlier stage with rioters, in order to limit damage? Is he aware that when prison rioters got on the roof of the prison at Hull — they did more than £1 million worth of damage—the water hoses were not used because, in the words of the governor, they were frightened about injuring the prisoners. Surely prisoners who take such action should be aware that if they do not come down when instructed they face injury.

Mr. Hurd: I believe that my hon. Friend is a hit hard in criticising me for not giving him the figure that I have just given. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that prisoners who escape, attempt to escape or riot should be subject to disciplinary action. As regards the money, I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that prisons should be kept secure and that prison staff need to work in decent conditions. Any idea that, in general, prisoners are kept in a cossetted or comfortable state is well astray.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nothing short of a national scandal that A and I) wings of Parkhurst prison are still unoccupied since the riot of 1979?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter when I visited the prison and, as he keeps in close touch with this matter, he will know that plans are going ahead to bring that area back into occupation, and he will know why it has taken so long.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Home Secretary take seriously the letter that was sent to him from the Prison Officers Association warning that Brixton will burn to the ground and that prison officers will be seriously injured or even killed unless he takes urgent action to improve the staffing levels? What does he intend to do about that unprecedented situation?

Mr. Hurd: I take seriously the representations from Brixton and we are in close touch with the local branches of the POA in several London prisons and nationally on that matter. The short answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I propose to recruit 1,360 additional prison officers in 1988–89.

Official Secrets Legislation

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an exact date for the publication of his proposals to change the offical secrets legislation.

Mr. Hurd: I hope to lay a White Paper before Parliament in June. At this stage I can give no more precise commitment.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for that answer. As the proposals made in the other place by Lord Bethell fit in very well with that putative timetable, will my right hon. Friend please give maximum encouragement to those proposals, bearing in mind that they reflect some of the utterances and expressions of opinion made some weeks ago in this House on the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)?

Mr. Hurd: I note the noble Lord's intentions. The management of business in the other place is, happily, not


something for me, but I am sure the noble Lord will also notice the timetable that my hon. Friend has elicited from me.

Mr. Stokes: Although this subject is liable to be a political minefield in view of the legislation that my right hon. Friend is thinking of, will he comfort himself with the thought that this subject is not of great interest to the man in the street, and is of interest mainly to media people and journalists?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has made that point effectively before, as he has done today. There is much truth in what he says.

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has revised the guidance given by his Department about concessionary television licences for pensioners in the light of recent litigation.

Mr. Renton: Revised guidelines about the application of the regulations governing the concessionary licence scheme were issued to the national television licence records office in April 1987.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept that in the light of recent court decisions it is now open to local authorities, by providing appropriate services to tenants, to ensure that many more elderly people can have concessionary television licences than do now? Will he place any obstacle in the way of that being done?

Mr. Renton: I stress to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a matter of appropriate services; nor is it only a matter of a communal facility having to be provided. The accommodation must also be part of a group and specially provided for. Since the Kirklees judgment we have had a great many applications for concessionary licences, and they are being carefully considered in the light of that judgment.

Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for helpfully receiving a deputation on this matter. Is he aware that hundreds of my constituents who are pensioners have been waiting 11 months for his departmental decision on the issue? Will he please give that decision early priority?

Mr. Renton: I am aware of that. I was pleased to receive the deputation brought by my hon. Friend the other day. There have been a great many applications since the Kirklees judgment, and we shall proceed to a decision on them as quickly as we can.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister not recognise that pensioners do not want revised guidelines? They want an urgent Government announcement that all pensioner households will receive free television. Does he recognise that the Government's record on pensions is scandalous and that many pensioners are being robbed of £8 to which they are fully entitled? A decision by the Government to give free television to pensioner households is long overdue.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman should sometimes think before he speaks. He should realise that if every pensioner received a free television licence, it would cost about £360 million a year. That means that the cost of everyone else's television licence would go up by about 50 per cent. Those who are on low incomes, but are not pensioners, would also have to pay that higher price.

Mr. Ward: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about blanket subsidies, but is he aware of the sense of unfairness felt by many people living in private sheltered accommodation, who believe that those who live in council-run accommodation are a privlieged group? Will he bear that in mind in future?

Mr. Renton: I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said. The difficulty is that the present scheme is unsatisfactory and gives rise to serious anomalies. Improvements were made to it in 1984, but we have not yet found a way of further improving the scheme without either unacceptably increasing costs or producing more anomalies.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give an assurance that no action will be taken against pensioners who do not have television licences now and believe that they fall into the category of exemption because of the grey area that has arisen since the Kirklees judgment? Is he aware that many pensioners in the Kirklees area do not have television licences because they think they are covered by the exemption scheme? If the Minister makes the ruling retrospective, they could be prosecuted in the interim for not having a television licence.

Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make the position clear. Until the concessionary licence is granted a full licence is required by law. If a concessionary licence is granted, it will be back-dated to the date of application. Anyone eligible who bought a full licence after that date can obtain a full refund, and no prosecution will be initiated against anyone for whom a concessionary licence application has been made while it is outstanding.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Thurnam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the effects of the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on the fight against crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: I have received a letter from the Conservative Association in my hon. Friend's constituency suggesting that the Act has been a handicap to police efforts to deter crime. I am not persuaded that that has been the case, but I have recently set in hand a review of the codes of practice made under the Act and I shall be consulting a wide range of interested bodies, including the police.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Act is helping to streamline court procedures by eliminating vexatious claims that the police have not been following proper procedures?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly bringing down substantially the amount of vexatious argument about what happened in a police station. If, as we plan, tape recording can be implemented effectively throughout England and Wales by 1991, it will be an enormous step forward in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestions made by the Labour party that the Act was unworkable and unfair have proved completely groundless? Will he be encouraged by the fact that, according to


a report published today, juvenile crime has decreased by 23·3 per cent. over the past 10 years? Will he continue to encourage the police in the practice of cautioning?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right in his latter point and I agree entirely with him. If we had listened to the proposals and accepted the amendments of the Labour party, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would have been infinitely more cumbersome and paper-ridden.

Mr. Worthington: Has the Secretary of State learnt anything from the visit of the Minister of State to France? Is he aware that that country has demonstrated that it is possible to turn down the crime rate if one acknowledges that crime rates are altered not by the number of police but by the conditions under which people live? His constant denials of the link between unemployment, living conditions and crime have been shown to be untrue in France.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend came back from France with some useful ideas about French crime prevention proposals. We have plenty of initiatives for crime prevention up our sleeves for the spring, and as they unfold I hope that they will have the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note the letter that I sent to him recently from the chief constable of Staffordshire in the wake of the Bingley Hall riots? Will he consider whether the code of practice — which is currently associated with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and designed to ensure that organised violence can be sought out and eliminated before it takes place—should be incorporated in the Act?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly take Staffordshire's suggestion into account when we look at the code of practice, but I have no plans to amend the Act at present. Staffordshire has taken notable initiatives, through the Staffordshire police, to try to keep young people in particular out of crime during the summer holidays.

NHS Demonstration (Police Conduct)

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the conduct of the police in the area around the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall during the demonstration in support of the National Health Service on 3 February; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand from the commissioner that the actions of the police on 3 February were taken in pursuance of his general duty to ensure the free passage of the highway and the requirement placed on him by sessional orders to keep the streets leading to the House free and open.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister investigate reports that people who took part in what had been a fairly peaceful demonstration, including some young nurses in uniform, were jostled, punched and kicked by policemen, some of whom behaved like animals? Does the Minister realise that nurses and Health Service workers would not have had to take to the streets if the Government had given them the same generous pay increases as they have handed out to the police in recent years?

Mr. Hogg: That question is typical of the Labour party in that it is a discreditable one. No complaint has been made against the police. It is interesting to note that only four were persons arrested, and of them only one was a nurse. What is intolerable is that the Labour party assists in the passing of these sessional orders and then complains when they are operated in a fair and reasonable manner.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets the Commissioner of Police, will he convey our thanks for the splendid job that the police carry out every time the House sits, for the protection that we receive from them, for their courtesy and for the fact that they handle all the demonstrations that take place with the kindness and diligence that we expect of them?

Mr. Hogg: When I next see the commissioner, I shall make sure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's point. One of the things that I expect to hear from him is his deep disquiet at the unfounded attacks on the police service from the Labour Benches.

Mr. Heffer: Although the Minister appears to be satisfied in respect of the National Health Service demonstration, is he satisfied with what happened to the Christians—priests, nuns, laity and monks—who went to the Ministry of Defence yesterday and were arrested because they took the decision—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about the sessional order referring to this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir John Farr: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir John Farr: Although I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask her whether she will take time today, in her busy schedule, to consider the sixth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee relating to criminal evidence, which was compiled in 1982 under the chairmanship of Lord Eden and comprised a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House? One of the Committee's recommendations was that a committee should be established to assist and advise the Home Secretary in cases of appeal. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider whether that is right. It is important to note that the House has not yet had a chance to discuss the recommendation. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

The Prime Minister: My answer to my hon. Friend has to be in the negative, because the Government's response to that recommendation was set out in the Government reply to the sixth report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, Session 1981–82. The reply concluded that, as a matter of principle, priority should be given to improving and enhancing the part played by the courts in considering alleged miscarriages of justice. I have nothing further to add to that reply.

Mr. Hattersley: Did the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services to Young Conservatives last weekend represent official Government policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I went all the way through the speech. It was excellent.

Mr. Hattersley: Having been all the way through the speech, the Prime Minister will be able to confirm the Secretary of State's view on the resources that he was allocated for spending on the Health Service this year. His view was:
I didn't think that was enough".
Does the Prime Minister endorse that view, or does she repudiate the Minister?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has left out a part of the sentence. It read:
I didn't think that was enough, in terms of the changes … all of us would like to see so far as the primary health care service is concerned.
My right hon. Friend went on to explain where the extra resources for those primary health care services were to come from. The misreporting occurred in one newspaper, but the matter was reported quite accurately in another paper.

Mr. Hattersley: Let us continue our textual analysis of the Secretary of State's speech. He went on to tell the Young Conservatives — I read the sentence in its entirety:
I wanted to see additional resources above and beyond those that I've secured.
As far as I can make out, all the country wants to see additional resources except the Prime Minister. Why does she not provide them?

The Prime Minister: That sentence referred to primary health care services. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he was going to get those extra resources from charges which have already been before the House, of which in fact the right hon. Gentleman disapproved. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question on a false supposition, because he did not read the speech. He disapproves of the place from which the extra resources are coming. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
It was … a Labour Government first started the introduction of charges in the field of optometry in spectacles and dental care, in league with all of these areas.
Extra resources over and above that are coming next year. They have been in the public expenditure paper. They are the biggest cash increase the Health Service has ever known—£1,100 million.

Mr. Summerson: In view of the Labour party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to the British independent nuclear deterrent, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has abrogated—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question must refer to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Summerson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British independent nuclear deterrent is part of the Government's responsibility, which has been thrown away by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The British independent nuclear deterrent is vital to the security of our people today and to generations in the future. The nuclear deterrent is a fundamental part of NATO's strategy. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has

been a tremendous help to police both here and in Northern Ireland. Those who really wish to fight terrorism should support that Act.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread fury at the pig's breakfast her Government have made of the ex gratia payments for the retail prices index error? Tens of thousands of war pensioners, the disabled, invalids and other pensioners have been cheated by the chaos. Nearly one in 10 of all those with combined pension books have lost out and many of them have been advised by Government offices to combine their books. Will the Prime Minister give us a guarantee today that all those who have been short-changed by the system will be compensated?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, there was no legal requirement on the Government to make those payments. We, however, calculated that the total estimated social security underspend was £109 million, of which special payments of over £101 million have been made to over 12 million people. — [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would listen. A very small group have been under-compensated, out of 12 million.—[Interruption.] Out of 12 million, 175,000 have been under-compensated, and the under-compensation is £1 million. Over 2 million people who have lost nothing by the error, but nevertheless receive an £8 special payment, which of course comes to £16 million. [Interruption.] It was necessary to do it that way in order to get the payments there very quickly, so the under-compensation has been about £1 million and the over-compensation has been about £16 million for 2 million people. Nevertheless, that is not the whole story. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself in patience, if he has any to contain himself with. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available a further £7 million, which is to go to voluntary charities specifically to help people in low income groups. Therefore, the under-compensation has been about £1 million against the extra £7 million available.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider whether there should be a review of the compensation paid in relation to major public works developments such as roads and airports? Is she aware that people who may not have any land taken suffer a substantial loss of amenity and loss of value of property simply because their houses are near to where the development is taking place?

The Prime Minister: We have no major review of that kind planned. There have been times when an airports authority or an air company has purchased property which is affected. If there are any cases, I suggest that my hon. Friend pursues that course of action.

Mr. Hume: As the person ultimately responsible for national security, will the Prime Minister tell us whether she was consulted by the Attorney-General before he made his statement of 25 January on the Stalker-Sampson report, and whether she approves of the principle which


he enunciated that day, that the interests of national security transcend the rule of law even in cases where there is loss of human life?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the description which the hon. Gentleman put in his question as accurate in any way. The Attorney-General made a full and complete statement in discharge of his duties. I have nothing to add to that statement. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in this country prosecution is not a matter for Government; it is for the prosecuting authority.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the simulated hysteria on the Opposition Benches about the National Health Service? Will she join me in congratulating West Dorset health authority, which is removing more than 50 of the 152 administrative posts so as to be able to apply the resources to greater patient care? Will my right hon. Friend join me in recommending other health authorities to follow that example?

The Prime Minister: I know that a number of health authorities have done precisely the same as the West Dorset authority. Indeed, there has been much more effective use of resources through cutting out waste. It normally amounts to about £150 million a year, which goes straight back into improved patient care and is one of the reasons why the number of patients who have been treated in the Health Service has gone up steadily. I understand that there is still a good deal more in terms of efficient use of resources to be got out of the Health Service, and I expect that the number of patients treated, the number of operations performed and the satisfaction with the Health Service will continue to rise.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd: Can the right hon. Lady explain carefully to the House how she can justify the policies of her Government which allow massive tax breaks to the already

rich to plant trees and destroy the environment in Scot land when she will not fund an adequate pay rise for low-paid nurses?

The Prime Minister: Nurses have had an increase of 30 per cent. in real terms under this Government, contrasting with the cut of 20 per cent. which they suffered under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of taxation. That is not yet for me. It is to be discussed in the Budget. I notice that the Labour party was singing a very different story in 1986, before the election, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said:
An election victory would be followed by a massive increase in taxation, as it was in 1979."—[Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol. 107, C. 1253].

Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Burns: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the latest unemployment figures which show, once again, that seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen, and does she agree with me that these figures, together with the White Paper on training that was published earlier this week, show that the Government's economic policy is working and that prospects for lower unemployment in the future are excellent?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Today's figures are more good news and show that unemployment has fallen for 18 months running, and by over 500,000 in the past year, that all regions have shared in that fall and that employment is still rising, with more than 1,500,000 more jobs since 1983.
Moreover, my right hon. Friend's statement on training indicates that as we shall need more and more skilled workers we are making provision to ensure that they get that training. That is a great tribute to the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his management of the economy.

Civil Service Management

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on management in the Civil Service.
I asked the efficiency unit to report to me on the progress of management reforms in the Civil Service. It has produced a report, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps". The report finds that many Civil Service managers want to see further changes to give more room and flexibility for the exercise of personal responsibility. The report recommends, first, that to the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Government, as distinct from policy advice, should be carried out by units clearly designated within Departments, referred to in the report as "agencies". Responsibility for the day-to-day operations of each agency should be delegated to a chief executive. He would be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister, in consultation with the Treasury.
It recommends, secondly, that the Government should commit themselves to a progressive programme for attaining this objective; thirdly, that staff should be properly trained and prepared for management of the delivery of services whether within or outside central Government; and, fourthly, that a "project manager" at a senior level should ensure that the programme of change takes place.
The Government have accepted these four recommendations, which will set the direction for further development of management reform in the Civil Service. Each agency will be accountable to a Minister, who will in turn be accountable to Parliament for the agency's performance. These agencies will generally be within the Civil Service, and their staff will continue to be civil servants. The Government will develop a continuing programme for establishing agencies, applying progressively the lessons of the experience gained.
The Civil Service unions will be consulted about the setting up of particular agencies. They will also be consulted if any change in terms and conditions of civil servants is contemplated.
The centre of the Civil Service must be organised in a way which is helpful to bringing about change. A permanent secretary in the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service will be responsible, through the Head of the Home Civil Service, to me for managing the process of change needed to implement the recommendations.
I have placed copies of the efficiency unit's report, together with a list of executive functions that appear to be promising candidates as initial agencies, in the Library and copies are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first assure the Prime Minister that the Opposition believe that a continuous review of the functions and performance of the Civil Service is necessary to improve its efficiency, its accountability and the service that it gives to the general public. In many respects, we have the best Civil Service in the world, but that does not mean it is beyond improvement. What the Prime Minister has announced today is, after all the press speculation, an anticlimax. It is no more than what Fulton recommended 20 years ago, although no doubt it creates the illusion of ministerial activity.
The important questions concern not what the Prime Minister has announced today but what she intends, and therefore I ask her three questions based on the guidance notes issued this morning to senior civil servants which contain the suggestion that they should be read alongside the Prime Minister's statement and the document put in the House of Commons Vote Office.
In paragraph C2 of the guidance notes, these words appear:
In a few cases it may be appropriate to set up executive agencies outside the Civil Service, eg by setting up private limited companies.
If the Government are contemplating turning part of the Civil Service into private limited companies, was it not the Prime Minister's duty to tell the House this afternoon?
Secondly, we are told in paragraph F3 that MPs are to be encouraged to approach agency management in the first instance. Since that is a clear erosion of parliamentary responsibility, was it not the Prime Minister's duty to tell that to the House of Commons this afternoon?
Thirdly, paragraph J3 says that reductions in Civil Service numbers have not reduced the services that the Civil Service provides. Has the Prime Minister never heard of the queues at DHSS offices, and is she not aware that there are now 200,000 unopened letters in Lunar house?
Finally, on the principle of what the Prime Minister says, since it is only of any real importance for what it presages for the future, about which there have been so many hints but so little action, let me ask her this. If there is to be a radical review of the Civil Service, can we be promised that changes will be preceded by discussions with all parties in the House? The Civil Service is not the property of any one Government and, to maintain the confidence in its impartiality and efficiency, changes in its organisation have to be made by consensus, not by confrontation.

The Prime Minister: I will take the right hon. Gentleman's points in order. First, I am not responsible for speculation in the newspapers. It gets wider of the mark every single day, as we all know.
Secondly, generally the executive agencies will be set up within the Civil Service, but on some occasions they will not. That is why I said "generally". There are occasions when it will be better to set them up outside the Civil Service. [Interruption.] I said "generally", not in each and every case. If the right hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that that is quite clear. So some of them will be set up outside and there will, of course, be consultations with the trade unions when they are set up.
Thirdly, on agency management, hon. Members quite frequently write to the manager of a local social security office or to an income tax inspector, because frequently they get a much quicker reply that way. There is nothing unusual about that and right hon. Gentlemen, when they were in power, would have advised hon. Members to write to managers when they possibly could because otherwise it takes very much longer. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that.
Fourthly, the numbers in the Civil Service have indeed fallen. The figure is now some 588,000 — the lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war. But numbers in particular Departments, including parts of the DHSS, have of course been increased as the need has arisen.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Civil Service. For our part, we pay tribute to the Civil Service, of which the nation has a right to be proud.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that following this statement we have business questions then a debate on the three prayers on the social fund and then a motion on which I am required to put the Question at 10 o'clock. I shall allow questions on this statement to go on until 4 o'clock and then, I am afraid, we must move on. I ask for brief questions, please.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In view of earlier reports of the Treasury and Civl Service Committee on the accountability of Ministers and civil servants, can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not in her mind that there should be any change in the relationship between Ministers, civil servants and Select Committees?

The Prime Minister: There will be no change in the arrangements for accountability. Ministers will continue to account to Parliament for all the work of their Departments, including the work of the agencies. Departmental Select Committees will be able to examine departmental agencies' activities and agency staff in the same way as they examine Departments now. The new approach does not affect the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The establishment of departmental agencies will not affect the powers and responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee. It is expected that when the permanent secretary, who is usually the accounting officer, goes to such a committee he will take with him the executive chairman of the agency and they will, therefore, both be available to answer questions.

Mr. Alan Beith: Does the Prime Minister accept that, whereas we would welcome any developments in organisation that allowed civil servants to exercise more personal responsibility, we would be strongly opposed to any attempt to prevent Members of the House from tabling questions on matters dealt with in the agencies that affected the fundamental rights of their constituents?
Does the right hon. Lady realise that both her reference to the performance of the agencies rather than to the matters with which they deal and suggestions in the yellow book carry the implication that the rights of Members on behalf of their constituents will be diminished? Is it not likely that, if that aspect of the matter is not corrected, we shall end up with Ministers continuing to exercise power but not being answerable to the House for what they are doing?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to the answer to the last question, which covered his point. I repeat: there will be no change in the arrangements for accountability. Ministers will continue to account to Parliament for all the work of their Departments, including the work of the agencies.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people agree that it is a good idea to split the functions of the Civil Service between the policy

units and the agencies? Is she personally satisfied that the streamlining of the Civil Service will lead to better value for money?

The Prime Minister: That is its purpose, but, as my hon. Friend will see from the report presented to me, a considerable number of people in the Civil Service want an arrangement that will give them more responsibility. Many of them are well aware that, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest, there has been too much splitting between the duties of those concerned with making policy and those concerned with management. We feel strongly that those concerned with making policy should know from experience how that policy is implemented, and we hope that there will be very much more overlap in the duties of civil servants, with a part in management and a part in policy making, than in the past. The point, as my hon. Friend has said, is to obtain better value for money through personal responsibility.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that one of the reasons for the very low morale in the Civil Service is that she has appointed so many confirmed Thatcherites to some of the best jobs? Does she not think that it would be very damaging for the country if she were now to embark on an attack on the Civil Service comparable to the attack that she has already carried out on the universities, the National Health Service and local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I totally reject what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will have had occasion to know as a Minister that the service received from civil servants is fundamental to the Civil Service, irrespective of any personal political views that civil servants hold. I am served every bit as well as the right hon. Gentleman has been served, and he does the House and the Civil Service a great disservice in some of his suggestions. This is a response to a report not by us, but to us, on improving management in government.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals for a less centralised and less archaic system of financial control and management in Whitehall are thoroughly welcome and, indeed, long overdue? Does she recall that I urged the same course on Lord Wilson of Rievaulx 20 years ago in the House, when I put the proposition to him after the Fulton committee reported that such an approach should be adopted? My right hon. Friend will also recall, however, that we made little progress at the time. Will she now accept warm congratulations that the initiative has been seized in the introduction of a system that will increase accountability, job satisfaction in Whitehall and the efficiency of the public machine?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I remember my right hon. Friend's views at that time, and the views that he has strongly pressed on us since then. He will be the first to be aware that this is the latest advance in greatly improving management in the Civil Service. The savings from the efficiency scrutinies are rising to £325 million a year, and total £1·3 billion so far. There has been greatly improved value for money in purchasing, saving £290 million a year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State put in a system of management in parts of the Civil Service called MINIS, which is also producing greatly improved efficiency. This


is the latest of a number of steps that have already done a considerable amount to improve management efficiency in the Civil Service.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the proposed management reforms apply to Northern Ireland? Will the Prime Minister ensure that there will be adequate consultation with the Northern Ireland Civil Service before any final decisions are made? Further, will she assure the House that it is her intention, as far as possible, to avoid conflict between Northern Ireland Ministers and managers? Finally, has consultation taken place through the Anglo-Irish Conference on the implementation of the report's recommendations?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, no. On the earlier point, the reforms will apply to the Civil Service throughout the United Kingdom. I do not think that the initial list of 12 contains any agencies from that particular Department, but the reforms will apply throughout the entire Civil Service. The executive managers of the agencies will operate within the framework of objectives and resources laid down in consultation with the Minister and the Treasury.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the report, but will it give the greatest scope in the Civil Service for performance-related pay and for some measure of decentralised pay bargaining — two important aspects that need to be encouraged?

The Prime Minister: It is intended that there should be more flexibility in pay in the agencies and also that there should be performance-related pay. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have already introduced a range of pay for a particular grade so that we can take into account people's performance. That range of pay for particular grades applies throughout the Civil Service. Yes, we believe in benefiting and rewarding excellent performance.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend accept our strong support for what is a limited but further reform of the Civil Service and her commitment to its excellence? But in establishing executive agencies, will my right hon. Friend recognise that the logic of that is that there should be contracts for those in charge of the executive agencies so that there is full personal accountability? Will she consider a progressive extension of recruitment to the Civil Service by contract as opposed to permanent life tenure?

The Prime Minister: The majority of agencies will be established within the Civil Service, although, as I said previously, that will not be exclusively so. I shall consider what my right hon. Friend has said in relation to those that are not established in the Civil Service. If there were to be any fundamental changes in terms and conditions of pay in the Civil Service, they would have to be in conjunction with, and after consultation with, the Civil Service. As my right hon. Friend knows, we must recruit to the Civil Service under the established rules. There is provision for late entrants and we benefit greatly from those who have had experience outside the Civil Service who join us later.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as the Fulton committee pointed out, policy changes are often the result of experience of

implementation? How will she ensure that there is a proper interchange between the agencies and the Government Departments? Will she confirm that the National Audit Office will continue to be able to audit all the agencies and so present the Public Accounts Committee and the House of Commons with the inside information that is so essential? Finally, what legislation will be required?

The Prime Minister: In so far as the agencies are within the Civil Service, the National Audit Office arrangements will, of course, continue to apply. In so far as they are set up outside, that would not be the case, as far as I am aware. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not what the right hon. Lady said."] It is what I said before. I said that, generally, the agencies would be set up within the Civil Service. That does not mean that they will be in all cases. In so far as they are within the Civil Service, the normal rules of accountability and audit continue to apply. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry. In so far as they are in the Civil Service, they will be accountable precisely as they are now. They will be set up in conjunction with Ministers within a framework and a resource allocation negotiated with Ministers and the Treasury.
I do not anticipate that legislation will be required for the proposals that I have announced.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister talks about accountability to Ministers through the House. Has she given special consideration to the Scottish Office, in which we have a Solicitor-General who is a former but defeated Member of this House and a Minister for agriculture who is a non-elected Member of another place? Will this new system improve accountability to Scottish Members?
Will the right hon. Lady comment on how the chief excutives will be appointed? Will it be by patronage or will it involve other members of the Civil Service through a process of election?

The Prime Minister: The executive managers of the agencies will usually be appointed in the usual way. If we secure someone from outside as an executive manager, that will have to be through the usual competitive rules—the ordinary Civil Service rules. He could not be chosen without that.
The Secretary of State for Scotland answers all the hon. Lady's questions very well indeed.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I assure her that the service that I get from civil servants in my constituency, especially at the Department of Health and Social Security offices, is first-class and often better than one can expect from Ministers. Nevertheless, will she bear in mind that it is important that hon. Members should have access at reasonable times to the Secretary of State in charge of a Department where it is not possible to get a proper answer from the Civil Service in one's own area?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One knows full well from one's own experiences as a constituency Member that if one writes to the manager of the Department directly concerned one frequently gets a swifter reply than is possible by sending letters from one Department to another and down to the agency. There will continue to be access to Ministers. Indeed, if anything, the number of letters has continued to increase—not only to other Ministers but to this one, too.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My constituents at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea, which may become a public limited company, fear that they are likely to become involuntary guinea pigs in an ideological experiment. Will the Prime Minister assure us that the proposal is not a certain intended device to decouple local wage rates from national Civil Service rates and that even the hived-off operations will have the same safeguards for their staff as civil servants at the DVLC have now?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the Swansea vehicle licensing office is one of the first of the 12 agencies proposed. It will be set up in consultation with the unions. On pay and recruitment and terms and conditions, we intend the agencies to be allowed some flexibility within the framework set by the responsible Minister, although there will need to be controls to safeguard public expenditure. The degree of flexibility can differ from agency to agency, depending on the requirements of the job to be done. Staff and unions will be consulted in the normal way if any changes in terms and conditions of service are contemplated. Quite apart from the proposals that I have announced, we have already made provision for a range of pay for any particular grade to enable us to take account of different circumstances and of merit.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Can my right hon. Friend suggest any areas in which she considers that an agency might be more effective outside Government? Has she received any advice that enables her to suggest to the House how that might proceed?

The Prime Minister: At present, no, but we are not excluding the possibility. We have put in the Vote Office a list of the 12 that we consider would be the first suitable executive agencies. From then on, it will be up to Ministers in their Departments—indeed, the 12 have come from Ministers — to identify functions and administrative services that are right for an agency, and to put forward those for future agencies.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Prime Minister agree that the aim of the proposal is simply to cut the pay of civil servants outside London? Does she also agree that that will inevitably lead to a lessening of ministerial accountability to this House because our constituency cases will be the responsibility of the heads of quangos—some private—rather than the responsibility of Ministers? Does she realise that she has started something that her party may come to regret — the wholesale appointment of political appointees to the heads of executive agencies?

The Prime Minister: I have said that, where the agency remains within the Civil Service, appointments will continue to be made under all the present Civil Service rules.
There is now a range of pay for grades—deliberately to give extra pay for extra performance. I am astonished that that meets so much hostility from the Labour party.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be warmly welcomed by many hon. Members? In choosing those functions that might happily be turned into agencies, will she confirm that it will be presumed that agencies with partially or mainly commercial functions will be those that would

properly be outside the Civil Service? Furthermore, will she consider the possibility of some of the existing agencies, such as the Property Services Agency, being candidates for being put outside the Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Property Services Agency is a Government Department with extensive responsibilities. We already enable Departments to choose to go to their own advisers rather than to use the Property Services Agency, if they think that they can get better value for money. Although it has not yet been proposed that the Property Services Agency be used in that way, we have a review of that agency and how best to reform its activities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Insofar as there could be agencies outside the Civil Service, I accept that it would be best to deal in that way with I hose that are essentially commercial services.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Prime Minister aware that Cumbernauld new town, in my constituency, contains a large Inland Revenue collection office? Is she further aware that my constituency suffers from high unemployment and low pay? Therefore, will she give an assurance that such areas will not be subject to change in the conditions of service and employment, that nationally agreed wages bargains will continue, and that the intention of this proposal is not to create conditions where the poor remain poorly paid, but rather that national pay negotiations will continue to determine what applies in the Civil Service nationally?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that the Inland Revenue had an office in his constituency. I think that he will find that the Inland Revenue Staff Federation has accepted the new arrangements for range pay. Perhaps he will kindly check that.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: In spite of the continued ministerial responsibility for policy, will my right hon. Friend confirm that sufficient ministerial responsibility and answerability for action will be devolved, as that seems to be the only way in which vast areas of service to people in this country can be entirely depoliticised?

The Prime Minister: The purpose of the change is to give more responsibility to the manager of the agency, but the manager will be accountable to his Minister and the permanent secretary will continue to be the accounting officer to the appropriate Select Committee. The whole purpose of this, in response to a report presented to us, is to reply to the desire of many people in the Civil Service to have more responsibility and the wish of the Government to have an organisational arrangement that will increase efficiency and the effective use of resources.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister clarify one doubt about one area of responsibility and accountability? Will areas that may become or—as the Prime Minister confessed — will become independent and private he accountable to Ministers and through Ministers, and will the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be responsible for any maladministration in those agencies?

The Prime Minister: In so far as they can become totally outside the Civil Service, they will not be accountable because they are totally outside the Civil Service. However, in general, they will be within the Civil Service and there will be no change in the arrangements for accountability.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY — Timetable motion on the Local Government Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Dartford and Thurrock Crossing Bill.
TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Steel Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents on the steel industry. Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's expenditure plans 1988–89 to 1990–91 (CM 288).
Motions on Scottish Housing Support Grant Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order.
Motion on the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Oppostion Day (9th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.

[Debate on Tuesday 23 February


Relevant European Community documents


(a) 8560/87
Steel industry: Community policy


(b) 4127/88


(c) 8803/86
EEC-USA steel arrangements


(d)Unnumbered


(e) Unnumbered
Compensatory measures against United States restrictions on steel imports


(f) 8993/86 + COR 1
State aids to steel industries: 1984–85



(g) Unnumbered
Spanish and Portuguese steel: delivery levels


(h) 10013/87
Steel Industry: Report of the "Three Wise Men"

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-iii (1987–88) para 22 and HC 43-viii (1978–88) para 3
(b) HC 43-xv (1987–88) para 2
(c) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 5
(d) HC 21-xxv (1985–86) para 2
(e) HC 21-xxvi (1985–86) para 2
(f) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86) para 6 and HC 22-iii (1986–87) para 3
(g) HC 43-iv (1987–88) para 5
(h) HC 43-xi (1987–88) para 11

Debate on Wednesday 24 February

The draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988

The draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1988

The Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1988.]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. At the same time, I should like to register our regret that the limited time available today for the debate on the social fund has been further reduced by the time taken by the Prime Minister's statement, which clearly could have been made on any other day.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the membership of the Select Committee on televising the proceedings of the House will be decided? When can we expect it to begin its work?
When can we expect a debate about the need for reskilling and retraining for young people and adults?
When are we to have a debate about the Stalker-Sampson report?
Finally, is the Leader of the House aware that the all-party Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has ruled without dissent that the Paisley grammar school order is badly drafted, technically defective and in breach of the rules of the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that preposterous order is withdrawn, and will he ask the Prime Minister to abandon her attempt at personal rule in Scotland before even more people in Scotland feel that their proud country is being treated as a banana republic?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me five questions. The first was about today's debate on the social fund. I regret that there will be some curtailment of the debate because of the statement, but statements are important and sometimes they have to be made.
With regard to the Select Committee to consider the experiment on televising Parliament, discussions are going on through the usual channels. We shall set up the Select Committee as soon as we can and will bring a motion before the House. I hope that there will not be long delay on that.
With regard to the debate on training for employment in the White Paper announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment earlier in the week, I suggest that this matter can be discussed through the usual channels. That is the best way to proceed.
With regard to the Stalker-Sampson report, subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the matter could be raised in the course of the debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order on Thursday.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments' report on Scottish schools regulations has only just been received and will be very carefully considered, but I understand that the regulations themselves remain valid.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, although hon. Members realise that he is responsible for getting Government business through, he is equally responsible for Members of the House and the defence of their rights? An announcement has been made that we shall debate a timetable motion on the Local Government Finance Bill on Monday. There is no motion for that timetable motion on the Order Paper; it will not be on the Order Paper until tomorrow morning. That gives hon. Members only five and a half hours in which to consider, draft and get in order any amendments they might wish to table to the motion.
Friday is a day when many hon. Members have parliamentary duties outside the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have heard that one before.

Sir Peter Emery: Some of us have constituencies to look after.
Will my right hon. Friend consider ensuring that at least two clear days' notice is given of timetable motions because Mr. Speaker has ruled that manuscript amendments cannot be accepted which give directives to the Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest and expertise in procedural matters. I should be sorry if he were prevented from having the opportunity to amend the motion if that is what he wishes to do. I am arranging for it to be tabled later this afternoon so that it will be available in the Table Office later today and can be amended then. However, I hope that when my hon. Friend sees the motion he will agree that it allows a generous amount of time to enable all parts of the Bill properly to be discussed.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the Leader of the House aware that the statutory instrument to which he refers, dealing with Scottish education, has humiliated the Secretary of State for Scotland as it was imposed against his will, and has abused almost every rule of the House? The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has described it as vague, but there has been a failure to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. In any other sphere of activity it would be regarded as ultra vires and illegal. It is only the technicality of the House and its sovereignty that have prevented the House from being condemned to 10 years in gaol for its maladministration and illegality.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's language is a bit rich. I am glad that he confirms that the regulations remain valid. As I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Committee's report has only just been received and will be carefully considered.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the Geneva convention which, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, forbids the use of the Red Cross logo on any document except its own? The Labour party pamphlet "Turn Budget Day into NHS Day", one million of which have been printed, infringes the law about which Opposition Members are so concerned. Would it not have been better for them to spend their money more charitably?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. and learned Friend an early debate. I should have thought that the contents of the pamphlet were the most objectionable feature of it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that his reply to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about the procedure is quite inadequate? The right hon. Gentleman is truncating the rights of the House. A simple solution is available to him. Last week, he announced that the steel debate would take place on Monday. If he stuck to his original announcement, we could have a debate about the guillotine on Tuesday and we would then have time to decide whether to amend it. It is ridiculous for the Leader

of the House to say, "Wait and see whether you like it when you see it." We want the right to amend that motion properly and in order and it is possible for the Leader of the House to ensure that that is done if he wishes.

Mr. Wakeham: Such a question is surprising from the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), given his expertise in moving five guillotine motions in one day. I suggest that he should listen to the answers that I give. The motion will be tabled this afternoon and will be available in the Table Office. It will be possible for anyone to amend it this afternoon.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for at last providing time for a discussion of the European documents relating to the steel regime of the Community along with the Second Reading of the British Steel Bill. I remind my right hon. Friend that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss the agreement reached in Brussels by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Will he arrange for a proper full day's debate of those very important discussions and their implications for this country and the Community for the next four to five years?

Mr. Wakeham: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House earlier this week, when, and only when, the decisions on the control of expenditure have been translated into firm and legally binding texts will the Government recommend a new level of own resources to the House. The House will then have a full opportunity for debate since the new level of own resources cannot be implemented without its agreement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House noticed that more than 150 right hon. and hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 543 on New Zealand's food exports to the United Kingdom?
[That this House affirms the right of British consumers to continue to buy butter from New Zealand in the same quantities as now; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there will be no diminution in New Zealand's butter exports to the United Kingdom.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to the House next week on the Government's intentions with regard to that motion?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a statement next week. However, the Community will have to take into account a whole range of factors, including budgetary costs, the views of consumers, its stance on trade policy issues in general and the pressures on the dairy industry resulting from quotas. It would be premature to discuss the Government's approach before the Commission has made its proposals.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early debate regarding a report broadcast today on "Woman's Hour" that hospitals all over the country as far apart as Leeds, Portsmouth, Colchester, Northampton, Hackney and Sunderland are denying women their statutory right to a termination at 12 weeks or more except in the case of extreme medical emergency? Those hospitals are under great pressure, as this House has been, from lobbies that are trying to alter the course of law in this country without going through the correct statutory channels.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on this matter next week, but I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Leader of the House noticed that the managing director of Land Rover admitted yesterday that he had given the names, addresses and telephone numbers, including ex-directory telephone numbers, of people working at Land Rover to an outside organisation in an attempt to obtain information that he could use against the trade unions in industrial disputes? Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate, as soon as possible, on such intrusions into privacy and abuse of personal information?

Mr. Wakeham: I am unable to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am not absolutely certain of the ministerial responsibility in that matter, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on the great distress that is being caused to widows, widowers and members of families in various parts of the country whose deceased relatives have been buried in cemeteries that are now being sold off by local authorities as a means of saving money on their maintenance? Will my right hon. Friend particularly note the case of Hanwell cemetery in west London in which people have been buried as recently as this year but which has now been sold? There are now proposals to build on that consecrated land and that is causing huge upset to families, widows and many others.

Hon. Members: Ask Shirley Porter about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. I cannot promise him a debate next week, but I wonder whether the subject he has raised might form the basis of a useful Adjournment debate, should he be lucky in the ballot.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House of what was said from the Front Bench? This is a day on which there are two extremely important debates, and I ask for brief questions. I shall call those hon. Members who have been seeking to ask questions.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The debate on the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 provides an opportunity to discuss the Stalker-Sampson report, the changed role of the Army on the border and so on. Has the Leader of the House noticed that, on that day, a high proportion of the Unionist Members from Northern Ireland will be in gaol? I believe that that debate is important to them and to us. It-might be unusual, but I would like to know their views on the matter. However, they propose to be in gaol. Could we alter the timing of the debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I should be extremely sorry if any hon. Gentleman had another engagement on that day. I do not think that I can alter the business of the House on that basis.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Now that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made a statement about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will the

Leader of the House make time for a debate on the prayers put down by the leader of the Liberal party dealing with the disciplining of and complaints about the RUC?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the Stalker report and related matters can be debated next week. The question of time for prayers is a matter for the usual channels.

Mr. Tony Banks: When can we expect to have another debate on parliamentary procedure? I am particularly concerned about the selection of the statements that are made in this House because they do not necessarily bear any close relationship to their importance in the great cosmos of events. They seem to relate to narrow, Tory party interests. On Monday, for example, the Prime Minister chose an extremely good day for her to come back to tell us about the surrender regarding the common agricultural policy. Today we have had a statement that delayed an important debate about social security. Yesterday we had an extremely long statement that shut out the debate on the abolition of the Inner London education authority. How does the Leader of the House select those statements?

Mr. Wakeham: Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far down that road, I suggest that he has a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, because I believe that he requested some of the statements to be made.

Mr. David Winnick: When is the inquiry into the fate of the British commandos — this matter was dealt with during last week's business questions—likely to report? When did the interrogations occur? Who was involved and what happened afterwards? Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement to be made about what records were available to the British Government at the time when Waldheim was to be appointed Secretary General of the United Nations? This is an important matter in view of the fact that Waldheim, as the Leader of the House is aware, is a suspected war criminal.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was extremely forthcoming in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) earlier in the week. She said that the Government were reviewing the results of the investigation carried out in 1986 by the Ministry of Defence in the light of the report of the International Historians Commission. I believe that the best thing is to wait for that investigation to be carried out. I shall refer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Dr. John Reid: Will the Leader of the House ensure that Monday's debate on the Dartford and Thurrock crossing Bill will have adequate time to explore the implications of the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations? That is important for two reasons. First, after 21 days of detailed study, the Committee, by a 5:1 majority, decided that its first priority was public safety and convenience and therefore a windshield should be erected on the bridge. The Government have rejected that recommendation. Their first priority is their cosy relationships with Trafalgar House.
Secondly, the whole Select Committee system is undermined if, after hon. Members on both sides of a Committee have agreed to a series of recommendations,


they are then tossed out by the Government who wish to ensure that the contract with Trafalgar House is maintained.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall say two things to him: first, I believe that the points he raised will be relevant to the debate on Monday. There will be adequate time for the Government to make their case and for others to reply. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is in error if he thinks there is any conventional rule of the House that the House is bound by a decision of a Select Committee. The House always has the right to examine reports of Select Committees and decide for itself.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to be brought back to the Chamber at 10 pm to make a further statement on her attack on the Civil Service, which is contained in the yellow report I have with me, and to say why there was no consultation with the trade unions that represent 600,000 civil servants before she accepted the recommendations in the report? She will then be able further to clarify what seems to be the main aim of the exercise—privatisation and hiving off—as outlined on page 27 of the report and hinted at in some of her answers to questions. That privatisation and hiving off will mean the end of national wage conditions and bargaining for the Civil Service in this country, and the living standards of civil servants outside London in areas such as Coventry will be severely cut. Is that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Prime Minister to the industrial relations problems in the Civil Service, especially on a day when the whole of the Department of Employment and the DHSS in London are on strike against wage cuts?

Mr. Wakeham: The answer is, "No, Sir." I shall not pass that message to my right hon. Friend, and I shall not ask her to come back here. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman uses the time profitably by reading and trying to understand the report. He will see from the list of agencies suggested for consideration that none of them involves privatisation.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gekas, of Edinburgh, the alleged Nazi collaborator, has asked to be put on trial? Is it not time that we had the opportunity to debate this principle, recognising that many Fascist sympathisers in this country have been welcomed here by the Tory Government? Surely, instead of leaving that to the press, we should be discussing it here. Is it not time that the Government said exactly what they intend to do about it?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman follows these things, apart from when he is speaking, but he may recall that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House of the way in which the Government are proceeding in these matters. What is more, if I remember rightly, his general approach was supported by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which is a sensible way in which to proceed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or debate before Budget day on the subject of subsidies by the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the Inland Revenue to the top four banks in Britain? Has he read today that the Midland bank

made a loss of about £500 million — and Lloyds will follow in the next few days? The truth is—this is why we need a debate—that the money those banks lost as a result of setting money aside for bad debt provision will be bailed out by the British taxpayer to the Inland Revenue. If, as it seems, the top banks have lost about £1,000 million in this bailing-out process, we should have a debate before Budget day so that some of us can say that if that sort of money is going spare it should go to the National Health Service and other projects.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked questions in similar terms more than four times before, and has shown a woeful ignorance of how the tax system works. So, although I cannot promise him a debate before the Budget—it would be improper to do so — I shall write to him and try to educate him before then.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the groundswell of opinion in this country, much of it Conservative and church-going, which strenuously objects to the vindictive and vicious statements of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, against people in the Church of England — prominent bishops, archbishops and clergymen? Is it not time that the Minister of State was reined in and told that he must stop it? He is bringing Parliament into disrepute and doing damage to the Government and their supporters.

Mr. Wakeham: I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who considers himself one of the most outspoken Members of the House and, indeed, of the British community, seems to object when someone else expresses his view. My right hon. Friend expresses his view, he will continue to do so, and I suggest that he is more in touch with public opinion than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William McKelvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inform the House of any progress that has been made in setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Wakeham: A little progress has been made. I am awaiting a letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). When I have that letter, I hope that it will be a substantial move in the right direction. I expect it at any time.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Director General of Oftel has made a statement to British Telecom about the now infamous Talkabout service which is offered to teenagers. I believe that the British Telecommunications Act 1984 has put the whole business of telecommunications beyond the reach of the House of Commons. The Talkabout service and other services are so base and out of touch with public morality that we should bring the matter back to the House so that suitable amendments can be made. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate. I understand that the position is that British Telecom has been given two weeks to agree to the proposals announced by Professor Carsberg, the Director General of Oftel, earlier this week. My right hon. and noble Friend is aware of the concern about the possible abuse of these services, and expressed his serious concern to the professor last month.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we be educated about the answer to early-day motions numbers 228, 253, 272, 273 and 286? It would be helpful if we had one of those educative speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), giving his version of events.
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that `John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved … He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or

his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
Secondly, may we be educated next week on how on earth it came about that, on 5 February, vital parts of the hull of a Trident submarine tumbled off the deck of a Bahamian-registered ship with an uninvestigated crew aboard? Apparently, name tickets have been placed to mark where the stuff has fallen into the sea. On 6 February, having learnt nothing, the crew of the ship then lost more parts of the Trident. May we be told what action was taken by anyone between 5 February and 6 February? Oscar Wilde had something to say on these matters: losing parts of Trident a second time really does require parliamentary explanation.

Mr. Wakeham: The educational process requires two people: one to make the statements and the other to listen to the answers. I fear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the answers that he has been given many times in the past about the matters dealt with in those early-day motions. I have nothing further to add to what has been said about them many times.
As for the saga of the bits of Trident that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I do not have the details here. I shall see what the Ministry of Defence has to say, and will write to him. If there is any more information that I can give him, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Alex Salmond: When are we likely to hear the promised statement from the Chancellor on Britoil, given the uncertainty facing the company and its workers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it would be much better for the House to have a full debate on the issue so that we can fully examine the promises made in 1982 and compare them with the performance of 1988, to establish whether the Chancellor still believes that it is
important to protect the character of Britoil as an independent company, responsible for its own management and business strategy"?—[Official Report, 31 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 334.]

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he was not present at the time, but I am not aware of that. My right hon. Friend did


not say that a further statement was necessary. He did not promise a further statement, but if one is necessary it will be made.

Dr. Alan Glyn: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) or the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) heard me say 15 minutes ago that I would call hon. Members who had been standing. If they will be very brief, I shall call them. I shall call the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead first, but I hope that he will be very brief.

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), among others, raised the matter of certain British prisoners of war who were tortured and murdered during the war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue should be dealt with expeditiously because it is giving rise to long-drawn-out discussions in the press? The sooner that we deal with it, the better.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she takes these matters very seriously. They will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend take note of early-day motion 449?
[That this House welcomes the 1987 Employment Act which introduces legislation that will significantly reverse closed shop arrangements, but notes that hundreds of thousands of students will still have no choice over whether or not they join the National Union of Students; and hopes that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take action to rectify this anomalous position as soon as possible.]
Many hon. Members do not like students being obliged to join any union, not least the National Union of

Students. We should like a debate on the matter, and for the membership of unions to become voluntary so that they have to earn their membership, not just collar it.

Mr. Wakeham: The National Union of Students is an affiliation of student unions; students' unions may elect not to affiliate. However, I recognise that my hon. Friend has raised an important matter. With her customary ingenuity, she might be able to find a way of raising the matter when the Education Reform Bill comes back to the House. I know from the timetable motion that a lot of time is available for discussing important matters.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not present earlier, but I understand that my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House raised the question of the Scottish education statutory instrument. What concerns me is that any discussion of that instrument, which has been reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, is at the discretion of the House. When a report is made, following flagrant abuses of the procedures by the Government, it is at the Government's discretion whether a debate takes place, which is unfair.
There is a rule in the House of Lords that if the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not examined an instrument it cannot be debated in the affirmative procedure — there is no parallel for the negative procedure. The Procedure Committee should examine the procedure so that if the Select on Joint Committee report an instrument to the House, and a prayer is laid, a debate should be held at the discretion of the House, not the Government. Clearly the Government have a vested interest in not subjecting their abuse of procedure to the light of debate. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how best we can ensure that the Procedure Committee looks at this issue speedily.

Mr. Speaker: The best thing that the hon. Gentleman could do would be to put the matter to the Procedure Committee when it has been set up; it is a relevant point.

Social Fund

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 34), dated 14th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be annulled.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate at the same time the other two motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Fund (Recovery by Deductions from Benefits) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 35), dated 14th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 36), dated 14th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: If that is convenient for the House, so be it.

Mrs. Beckett: This will probably be the final debate before the new social security structure comes into force in April. It focuses on the issue of the social fund, which consists of a set of proposals which are universally condemned outside the ranks of the Government, particularly by those whose job it is to advise on our benefit and pension structure, such as the Social Security Advisory Committee and the charities, which are appalled at the way in which they will be expected to pick up the pieces of what is nothing more or less than a demolition job.
The social fund will be a cash-limited fund that will offer the only source of help from the DHSS for extra or exceptional needs over and above those that can be met from weekly income for not only the 8 million people who are on supplementary benefit, but a wider group who might under the new system apply for a crisis loan or community care grant.
To meet the exceptional needs of over 8 million people, the social fund has the princely sum of £60 million, which is £300 million less than was paid in the last full year of the present system, which covered fewer people. In addition, £140 million of recirculated money can be given as loans. Indeed, so restricted is the budget, and so manifestly unjust and unworkable is the scheme, that to bring it into being the Government were forced to abolish rights of appeal that have existed for over 50 years. There is, despite regulations that deal with a system of review that is now before the House, no independent appeal against the decisions to be made under the social fund. An independent appeal would mean an objective decision on the facts of each case and the budget could not conceivably then hold.
It is hardly surprising that the first thing that present Ministers did when they saw this scheme was to try, unsuccessfully, to ditch it. In fact we are seeing a U-turn. In 1980 the Government, with general consent, published rules for the single payment scheme because the previous discretionary scheme, which had secret guidelines, was in complete disrepute.
Unfortunately, the Government could not resist making substantial cuts at the same time. The then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said in Committee in 1985, with

uncharacteristic bluntness, that the restrictive nature of the rules that the Government had sought to introduce meant the virtual abolition of clothing grants. No one denies that there are serious problems with the present system. However, they do not stem from the existence of rules, but from the way in which the Government have steadily tightened the rules to save money, which has led to obvious problems and anomalies.
I shall give two examples of the problems that are occurring. The British Association of Social Workers has quoted a case where a family had to be moved out of an infested council house and had their furniture and clothing destroyed because fumigation had proved unsuccessful. The family were moved temporarily into a hostel and were then rehoused, but they were refused bed, bedding and other items because they had claimed for those items in the past three years. The only regulation under the existing rules that could be used was one that involved a serious risk to health. The payment was refused because, in the judgment of the adjudication officer:
the lack of bedding could be avoided by the family 'sleeping in their clothes.'
I shall give another example of a case in which an application was made for a cooker. The claim could not be considered because, although a cooker is regarded as an essential item, the person who claimed had not been on supplementary benefit for 12 months or more. The decision in this case was that the need was not exceptional or serious enough, because although there were children in the family they were of school age and there was no suggestion of a health problem for which cooked food was essential for any of the family. The adjudication officer said:
We are advised that for people in good health there is no medical necessity for cooked food and that nourishing meals can be prepared without cooking.
Hence, a claim for a cooker was disallowed.
No one is arguing that there are not serious problems with the present system, but those are the kinds of problems that have arisen, particularly since the cuts that were made last year to pave the way for the social fund. They are not due to the existence of rules for payments.
The universal maternity grant, which was replaced this year by the social fund payment, is available only to the most needy. It is available now as the only replacement for a single payment, which was made previously under rules. Although the mechanism for the payment is now under the social fund, the payment was cut from a possible £190 under the regulated single payment system to a maximum of £85 under these regulations. The cost of having a child cannot have changed since last August, but the amount of money that the Government are prepared to make available has changed. Again, it is clear that it is not the nature of a discretionary or regulated system that is at fault, but the size of the budget. The present system has been so far from ideal that it cannot have been easy for the Government to find a way of making it worse.
The Government have kept the regulation under which those, particularly pensioners, who save towards their funeral — I am told by a funeral director that the average cost of a funeral is now about £600—are likely to be debarred from help because there is a £500 capital limit for claims under the provisions of the fund.
The Government have made many changes. They claimed that, because so many people were excluded, despite obvious need, under the system that rules, they


would institute a totally discretionary and flexible new social fund as the answer. Initially there was a degree of somewhat wary acceptance of that basic premise, but, meanwhile, the ground of the debate was steadily shifting.
For decades there has been agreement across the board and in all parties that those at the income levels of supplementary benefit or income support could not be expected to provide from their weekly income for major items. In its 1986–87 report the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
A family with growing children cannot reasonably be expected to purchase extra items of this sort by deductions from weekly benefit without seriously reducing their disposable income.
The committee went on to say:
some expenses cannot realistically be budgeted for from within present benefit rates.
In their efforts to cut costs, and as the number of casualties of the Government's economic policies increase, the Government have begun to deny that basic and self-evident truth. They have begun to talk about abuse of the system of single payments, when they really mean use of the system. Citizens exercising their rights in law have been described as if they were committing a fraud, all to justify those cuts.
In June last year the Social Security Advisory Committee, when commenting on the draft proposals for the social fund, said:
problems about routine expenses are a normal consequence of living on a supplementary benefit budget, not caused by unusual events, nor affecting unusual people.
The committee went on to say:
the illustrative rates for income support, personal allowances and premiums"—
in other words, the whole package of changes for basic income put forward by the Government—
do not indicate a sufficient increase over weekly supplementary benefit rates for the majority of claimants to justify a more stringent approach to the provision of lump-sum grants.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady have experience in her constituency, as I have in mine, and as no doubt other hon. Members have in theirs, of young, single parents trying to set up a household for the first time and being allocated a council house or flat, but being unable to take up the offer because they cannot obtain the necessary equipment to sustain life in that accommodation? Is that not an outrageous reflection of the Government's values?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. It is outrageous and it is a problem which, sadly, is likely to increase under these provisions.
When the Social Security Advisory Committee made the observations that I have quoted, it had before it only the Government's illustrative figures for the likely rates of income support. Since then the real figures of income support have been published, and it has become plain that £150 million has been cut from the underlying rate of income support. The figure of some £300 million that the committee gave for a minimum budget for the social fund is itself too low, although it is certainly preferable to the figure of £60 million, which is the only extra cash available from the Government.
The starting point of the Government's claim to detect abuse was the increase in the level of single payments to about £400 million some two or three years ago. The Government claimed then, and still maintain, that that

level of payment could not be justified as being related to the level of unmet need. The Government's own figure for the shortfall in basic income for the underfunding of the long-term unemployed alone is at least £500 million. That is the Government's figure for the cost of paying the longterm unemployed the long-term rate of benefit, which exists to meet the day-to-day needs of those on long-term benefit.
That is an extra sum that the unemployed fail to receive only because they are unemployed and because the Government have always said that they cannot afford it, even when they used the same sum of money to help those with investments of £70,000. To this day the Government have never denied that that award would be justified to give the long-term unemployed at least a subsistence level income. If the unemployed alone are underfunded by £500 million, it is not surprising that a single payment scheme, which also covers the sick and pensioners, begins to run at £400 million when rights and entitlements are clearly laid out for all to see.
These proposals for the social fund are not about unjustified misuse of the single payments scheme. They are about saving money at the expense of those in need. We have only to consider the attitudes revealed by the guidance for the Government's flexible friend. Only £60 million is available for community care grants, and that is available only to those who have special one-off, once-in-a-lifetime needs, such as leaving an institution or a violent marital home. It is pretty plain from the way in which the guidelines are drafted that there is no chance for second thoughts, whether for someone coming out into the community, or for someone leaving a violent home after a marital break-up.
People may be entitled to grants only when they have shown that there is no other way of meeting a need and that they have approached—not simply that they could approach—relatives or charities for help. In December the Spastics Society issued a statement which said:
The Society is desperately concerned that it will be inundated by applications for help from disabled people who may have to approach us before they can get help from the fund … We will not have the resources to help such applicants. Government measures have not only taken away the rights of disabled people but also put charities in an impossible position.
Age Concern draws attention to the fact that a widow who finds herself with essential roof repairs to make would be unable to qualify to apply for a grant unless she fell into the appropriate priority group, defined as elderly people, particularly those with restricted mobility or who have difficulty performing personal tasks. Grants for minor repairs can be allowed to such people provided that the social fund officer is satisfied that, unless repair or maintenance work is carried out on the home, the person is likely to be taken into residential care. As we have already seen the kinds of judgment that are made on what is really a serious risk, we can scarcely have much confidence in something so qualified.
That is the most generous part of the fund. That is the part where people might get a grant if they satisfied all the criteria. The other £140 million of recirculating money is only for loans. Even under the discretionary scheme, which the Government claim will remove the difficulties faced in the scheme with rules, 15 separate items are specifically excluded and cannot be considered for a budgeting loan. Such items include the cost of mains fuel consumption, work-related expenses and deposits to


secure accommodation—the very things that it would be sensible for the Government to provide to help people to achieve their independence.
If a loan is given it must be repaid within a maximum of 78 weeks, perhaps exceptionally at the rate of 25 per cent. of someone's income support, but normally at 15 per cent., or perhaps less, for small loans. Age Concern points out that a widow of 68, with the same essential roof repairs, would have to pay £6·09 per week from her subsistence level income. She would therefore live to that extent below her subsistence level income for 66 weeks.
A family with two children, meeting the normal repayment terms of a loan, may find themselves facing repayments of £11·68 per week. If they have a smaller loan and lower repayment terms, the figure will still be £7·90 per week. That is about the price of a pair of children's shoes every week of the year, yet the possibility of a loan may be the only chance of the family getting anything for other essential items.
It is interesting to consider the Government's view of how easy the expenses are to meet. From the draft manual — the incoming Minister removed it from the final manual, and one can well understand why—one can see the Government's view of how people normally budget their income. They say that people make temporary readjustments as necessary so that they can meet food bills, fuel bills and so on and
unplanned or unexpected expense, eg. a higher than expected fuel bill, clothing which unexpectedly needs replacing, a cooker which suddenly breaks down, etc.
That comment — discreetly removed from the final version of the manual, but there on the record as the Government's attitude — clearly indicates, as has been said by many commentators on the proposal, that the Government consider this from the point of view of people who have always had a reasonable income and have always found it reasonably possible or easy to repay a loan. They have no concept of how difficult it is for families on benefit to meet the same concerns.
That attitude can be contrasted with the remarks of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:
But when it becomes essential to replace a large item the repayment rate on a social fund loan will only be achieved at the expense of a reduction in the resources available for the weekly essentials of food, fuel and clothing … the single payments system exists to meet exceptional needs.
The committee cannot see how these needs can be met from weekly rates of income.
We talked first about those who might get a grant, and now we are talking about those who might get a loan. It is possible that there will be people who will not get even a loan. If the local office runs out of money—let us not forget that the fund is cash-limited—some people will get nothing. They will not even be allowed to reapply for another six months, no matter how desperate the need; nor is the office allowed to keep a waiting list. That is a clear indication that the Government know that there will be cases of proven real need that should be met by any objective standards, but will not be met, only because the money has run out. If that were not likely, there would be no need for that restriction. There is no doubt that offices will run out of money.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that in those cases where there is a genuine need and applicants cannot be paid because the social fund

has been exhausted, we should encourage them to bring their cases to us and we should write direct to the Secretary of State so that he will know that people are being penalised because the social fund has run out?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said. The Government have abolished the right of proper independent appeal, and there will be no real opportunity to get a judgment from the Secretary of State. All that we can do is to see that full pressure is brought to bear by hon. Members of all parties. I hope that people in Conservative constituencies will approach their Members to exert such pressure.
There is no doubt that the fund will run out of money. Grants of £60 million will be available to replace expenditure previously running at £340 million to £400 million, and only 17 to 20 per cent. of the income disbursed by local offices in the last full year of payments will be available.
The Government accept only one circumstance in which the money may run out. If there is some totally unforeseen disaster, such as a hurricane, they agree that local offices might have needs for which they have not been able to budget, so the Government have generously provided a contingency fund to which any office can appeal if such a disaster should occur. That contingency fund will contain the princely sum of £2 million. One office in Glasgow—not even the whole of Glasgow—has lost more than £2 million from its grants budget alone, so we can see how valuable the contingency funding will be. The money will run out and people will not even be offered loans, but they will be offered money advice.
The Government have managed to find a way of adding insult to injury. It is possible to manage one's money only if there is enough to manage. If income is totally inadequate, all that can be done is to stagger from one disaster to another. I quote to the Minister the words of the Family Welfare Association, describing the position today, before we get into the mess that we will be in with the social fund:
Economies on food are frequent. In the FWA we are regularly astonished by the small amounts that applicants have to spend on food when all other commitments have been met and we are very aware that such small sums cannot really provide a nourishing diet. The rising tide of deficiency diseases among children is good evidence of the results of these kinds of economy.
The association speaks about the increased suffering that poor families are likely to experience.
It is revealing to consider the tone in which the money advice will be given. I refer to the guidance given to the social fund officer about discussing with people their need for money advice:
Are there any relatives outside the home who could help? A common reaction is to hide financial problems from relatives, yet they may be prepared to help. They may be ready to offer moral as well as financial help. This is also a sensitive area.
I bet it is a sensitive area.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If people are not able to get any advice or help from immediate relatives, will not the natural corollary be that families who do not have money will go to the loan sharks? We all know that their rates have been increasing rapidly in the past eight years. The residual income of the average family going in debt has risen from 45 per cent. in 1979 to more than 80 per


cent. in 1988. The truth is that the Government are running a pawnshop economy, and these provisions will add to the problems of the poorest families in Britain.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. He will readily appreciate, from the tone of the guidance in the manual, that not only will some people be forced to go to loan sharks because they will be turned away from the Department, but that some people, faced with that kind of questioning, will prefer to go to loan sharks. They may be wrong or mistaken, but would people want to go to the DHSS and be asked about their friends and relatives and how many charities they had approached before being turned down for a loan?

Mr. Frank Field: As my hon. Friend knows, I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but he is being kind to the Government in saying that they are running a pawnshop economy for the poorest in the community. In the old days, if one went to a pawnshop, it had money to pay out. Under the social fund, for most of the year the Government pawnshop will not have any money.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has again put his finger exactly on the scale of the problem. No amount of advice can bridge the gap of £500 million faced by the unemployed because of inadequate scale rates.
The final seal is set on the generosity of the social fund and its flexibility by one simple provision. A family who are already so deep in debt when they approach the social fund officers that they cannot afford to repay a loan in the time scale and at the rate that would be necessary to qualify for such a loan would get nothing, not a single penny, although by definition they are in the greatest need of all.
The reforms, as the Government call them, are being made in the name of targeting help to those in the greatest need. This is Alice in Wonderland politics, and those who lose their heads will be those in the greatest need—all in the name of helping them. This is probably the worst aspect of all the proposals that the Government have put before us to change the social services. It will be arbitrary and unjust, and it will cause bitterness, rancour and resentment. Reading the social fund manual is like reading some black humour from the pages of "Punch" at the turn of the century.
It is often said that history repeats itself. This week I have been reading some articles on the old poor law. It is amazing how the words of Ministers justifying these changes are echoed in the pages of the discussions about the history of the poor law. It is said that history repeats itself as farce and then as tragedy. For the poor, this certainly is tragedy.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Today is the last opportunity to discuss the reforms before their implementation in April. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to hear that I have been conscious that the social fund is not the most popular of the reforms which will be introduced in April. It has been subject to a spread of criticism from many organisations, most of which have been collected in the speech of the hon. Lady.
When the reforms are introduced we will have a social fund, and it will be for the Goverment, the Opposition and

other bodies to see how it works in practice. We will be in new territory. Many aspects of it will be positive and will help to meet flexibly and compassionately the needs of people who cannot be helped by other aspects of the system, such as income support.
I understand why we are discussing the wider issues of the social fund today, because this is an ideal opportunity so to do. I welcome the chance to put on the record, as we come to the launch of the social fund, the facts about the new scheme and the argument in favour of it. Before that, perhaps I may respond to some points raised by the hon. Lady, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply generally at the end of the debate.
The assertion has been made that it is inevitable that the budget for the social fund will be exhausted either in the course of a month or in the course of a year. That is by no means certain. The social fund officers and managers of local offices will not be the only people who have placed upon them the duty of managing a budget throughout a financial year. The allocations for the social fund will be made to local offices on an annual basis. As has been announced publicly, the local offices will for their own purposes draw up a profile of likely expenditure throughout the year and will allocate a sum for each month.
But that will not be carved into tablets of stone, if I may put it that way. It will be guidance for their management of the fund. If they need to shift money between months to meet a surge of demand, they can do that. There will also be a built-in flexibility. If a social fund officer finds that he is running short of funds in one month, he will not have to take an immediate decision on an application, but may hold it for up to 28 days and consider it in the light of the funds that are then available.
A second canard that has begun to run about the social fund is that when claimants ask for loans, they will first be referred to charitable bodies. That is not true. There is no question of claimants being sent routinely to seek other sources of help—whether a charity or a relative—before an award is considered. But it is only right that social fund officers, confronted with a claim, should have to take account of the help that might be available from other sources. Before making such a referral, a social fund officer will have to be satisfied that there is a realistic expectation that help will be available in time. No one is suggesting that claimants will be advised to seek charitable help from another agency or a relative on the off-chance that such help will be available.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside for the moment the plight of those who may be unable to get assistance because the social fund has been exhausted, why are the Government pursuing a policy of hurting the poorest — to receive supplementary benefit one has to be very poor — by giving loans instead of grants? Why is there such a spiteful, mean attitude to those who are in dire need? It is something which we cannot understand.

Mr. Scott: As I have told the House already, I do not believe that we will be confronted with a situation in which the budget is exhausted. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to make the rest of his intervention again later in the debate. I hope to use this opportunity to set forth the arguments and the facts about the social fund.

Mr. Winnick: Why have loans instead of grants?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman asks why there will be loans. There are two elements. One is discretion. The hon. Member for Derby, South and others have suggested that discretion will always operate to the disadvantage of the claimant. That is not so. Under the existing single payments scheme, a claimant may be turned away because his claim lies just outside the letter of the regulations. Discretion can operate to the benefit of claimants. Social fund officers, who will be specially trained, will be able to exercise their discretion sensibly and compassionately—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will restrain themselves, I shall seek of answer their questions.
People who are just above the level of income support have to budget for the payments that qualify for loans under the social fund. I believe that it is right, and increasingly should be right, that people who are on income support should have a sum of money which they are expected to manage themselves. The hon. Member for Derby, South talked about the level of benefits. In an ideal world, we might wish to see different levels of benefit. No doubt the hon. Lady would want benefits to be much higher, whatever the cost to the taxpayer, but I cannot believe that it is other than a proper approach that those on income support should, like the rest of the community, be put into a position in which they can manage their own resources without recourse to single payments.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made great play about loan sharks. I cannot believe that anyone in his right mind, given the opportunity of getting an interest-free loan from the social fund, would want instead to avail himself of the facilities offered by loan sharks. [Interruption.] I am confident that in the budget for the social fund there will be adequate resources to provide for the high-priority cases that will arise. There is flexibility within the social fund to meet the needs.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Scott: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman this time, but I am conscious that quite a few hon. Members wish to speak and that we are constrained by time, and I do not want to delay the House.

Mr. Cook: The Minister must be aware that he has made an important statement which goes to the heart of the anxiety about the social fund. If it turns out that his confidence is misplaced and the social fund is not adequate to cover the claims, will he in the course of a year reconsider the budget?

Mr. Scott: I take two points from what the hon. Gentleman has said. The first is that I have been in the House too long to start answering hypothetical questions. Secondly, the provision for single payments this year will be about £200 million and is not far removed from the provision that will be made for the social fund. So we will have to wait and see. Of course the Government will monitor the operation of the fund. So, I am sure, will the Opposition and various other bodies.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that in my local office in Stoke Newington the amount of money being allocated for the social fund is only 73 per cent. of what was paid out in single payments this year? So my people in Stoke Newington are already a quarter down. How can the Minister say that people will not be turned away?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give a detailed answer to her question. My hon. Friend knows of her concern and will deal with it later in the debate.
The current system of weekly benefit and payments for exceptional need is operated under a complicated set of supplementary benefit regulations. I have not heard widespread praise for that system. The rigidity and complexity of the single payments scheme, and the fact that the pattern of payments across the country frequently bears little relation to the real pattern of need in communities, are all disadvantages that have been raised. I believe that the changes in the overall pattern of income support, including the social fund, will enable the Department of Health and Social Security to provide a faster, better and more flexible system for claimants.
In some circumstances the social fund will be able to help not just those on income support but those who are just above that level. The House will be aware that, since last April, payments have been made from the social fund for maternity needs and funeral costs. Amendments to the rules for those payments are set out in the regulations. Phase 2 starts in April this year and will not be regulated, as the other payments have been, but will be discretionary. As a discretionary scheme, it will be more flexible than single payments and will provide a more varied response to the different needs which can arise and a greater responsiveness to local circumstances.
Perhaps I should remind the House briefly, to get it on the record, of the different types of payment from the social fund. The hon. Member for Derby, South referred to maternity payments, which will be at a flat rate of £85 from April for each baby expected, born or adopted, and payable to people receiving income support or family credit. It is worth reminding ourselves that the single payment will replace the old maternity grant of £25 and the single payment for maternity needs that was previously made under supplementary benefit regulations.
The social fund maternity payment of £85 from April is not based on needs for specific items, but is a standard sum for each new baby. As such, it provides more accessible help for those now receiving supplementary benefit and will continue to do so after the introduction of income support in April. Of course, there will be regular help from weekly benefits towards the costs of looking after a baby, and child benefit and income support, with extra amounts for each child.
A second aspect of the social fund that is already in operation are the payments to meet essential funeral expenses incurred by people receiving income support, family credit or housing benefit, who are responsible for a funeral. The payments replace the old death grant of £30 and the single payment for funeral expenses.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister explain what happens once the amount allocated for the social fund in a particular area has gone? What happens to those who come late, even in relation to funeral benefit? How will those people manage? What are they going to do?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is referring to funeral expenses, which are made under regulations and not within the cash-limited part of the social fund, and those payments will be made,


if they meet the regulations. Maternity and funeral payments are regulated, subject to appeal, and are outside the local office budgets.
Attention has understandably been focused on the discretionary parts of the social fund that are to be introduced in April, in phase two. Budgeting loans will be interest-free loans available to help people who have been in receipt of income support for six months or more to spread the cost of intermittent expenses that are difficult to meet from weekly benefit. Money advice will be available to those with particular financial difficulties. Crisis loans will be interest-free loans available to assist people, whether or not they are on benefit, who cannot meet their short-term needs in an emergency or disaster. Payments will generally be for a specific item or immediate living expenses for a short period, not normally exceeding 14 days.
A great deal of play has been made of the fact that because this scheme is discretionary there will be no right of appeal. If it is discretionary in essence, it is difficult to see how one could have an appeal system, in the sense that it is normally understood. It may be a help to the House if I explain generally what will happen during the review process that will be in place and available instead of an appeal system as we normally understand it.
The regulations simply prescribed the way in which applications for review and further review should be made. For example, they must be in writing, be delivered or sent to a DHSS office within 28 days of the date when the disputed decision is issued, and must contain the reasons for the application being made. When an application for review is received, a social fund officer, who is usually the one who made the original decision, will first of all make sure that the application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. He will then review his original decision in the light of all the points that the applicant has raised.
If the officer feels unable to change his decision, he will arrange for the applicant to be interviewed. During the interview, the social fund officer will explain the original decision fully and the applicant, or his representative, who may be present if he so wishes, may make any points to the officer. The officer will then write an account of the interview.
If, after the interview has taken place, and the written account is delivered, the officer still feels unable to change his decision, he will pass the matter to a senior officer, usually of the higher executive officer grade, who will look at every aspect of the case in reaching the formal review decision. If the applicant is not satisfied with that review decision, he has the right to apply for a further review to the social fund inspector.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Mr. Scott: I shall not give way yet.
Social fund inspectors will be independent of the Department's local and regional office management, and will be answerable, not to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services but to the social fund commissioner. The inspector's role in the review process is to ensure that the social fund officer applied the law correctly, including the Secretary of State's directions.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Scott: I shall give way shortly.
The inspector will ensure that the social fund officer acted fairly and reasonably and took account of all the available evidence, and that all the required procedural steps were taken, with the applicant being given sufficient opportunity to put his case.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister has outlined the role of a social fund inspector. It is very important that we should know, first, whether the inspector at any stage will be hearing oral evidence and, secondly, where he will be based.

Mr. Scott: It is open to the social fund inspector, if he feels that it would help him in coming to his conclusion, to interview the applicant. He is not compelled to do so and in general I believe that that would be unlikely.
In relation to the review procedure, which I think is fair, the social fund commissioner will be responsible, among other things, for the standard of the inspectors' decisions and will report annually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that report will be published. The review procedure that I have just outlined has had much scorn poured upon it, but it has been described by Lord Denning in the other place as being simple, fair and just machinery.
I believe that the basis upon which the social fund has been established is sound and that the element of discretion will operate to the benefit of claimants. I do not believe that the money will be exhausted. The review procedures are fair and just, and reflect the reality behind a discretionary rather than a regulated system.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Scott: I believe that the social fund needs a fair chance to show that it can meet, in a flexible and compassionate way, the needs of those who need extra help, whether or not they are in receipt of income support. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: The reason for the social fund is very simple. The Government are intent on reducing the amount of money that is paid under single payments, and have come up with this scheme. There has been worry about escalating public expenditure and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said in her powerful speech, there is the question of abuse.
In a sense, Members of Parliament have a social fund. A whole range of expenses are available to us, which our constituents know little of. This debate is our last opportunity to comment on the shape and structure and policing of the social fund. I wonder whether we would be happy to have the policing that the poor will get through the social fund. There seem to be dual standards operated by the House.
The other view that has been put about—

Mr. Winnick: There are other people's expenses.

Mr. Field: I agree with my hon. Friend, but as we are voting, it is fair enough for me to raise the question of our expenses.
The view being put over is that some people are milching the system; indeed, some journalists make such comments about MPs and their expenses.
No Opposition Member claims that poverty ennobles people. The reason why we want a war against poverty is that it destroys people and makes it more difficult for them to be decent to themselves and to one another. That is why we oppose so many measures that the Government bring forward. Of course some people will work the system, but there are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of other people who are dependent on the safety net that is disappearing with the regulations.
I will give two examples of people who applied for help under the system that we are abolishing and failed to get it — so goodness knows what will happen to people under the new system.
A couple moved from the husband's parents in Rock Ferry to the Ford council estate. When the officer visited them, because they had made a request for furniture, one of his questions was, "Why have you got those pictures on the wall?" The wife explained to me that they were just cheap pictures bought in the market and were the only wedding presents that people could afford to buy for them. There was no furniture in that flat. I realised this when the wife, who was pregnant, said that sleeping on a carpeted floor when they were with her husband's family had been much easier and softer.
Another family on the Ford estate visited by the officer had a single deckchair, because that is the cheapest type of chair that one can buy. The wife was pregnant. The visiting officer took the deckchair and sat in it while he conducted the interview, and my constituents sat on the floor. They were not successful in getting a single payment. That is the generous system that we are turning off today.
When listening to the Minister, we had a horrible feeling of unreality. The Government seem to feel that if only they can get through the script and read the brilliant prose which a civil servant has written for them the scheme will work. We have taken every opportunity to try to convince the Government that it will not work in a way that is acceptable to decent people in this country, and certainly to the poor.
The only time that I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was when she said that it was like Alice in Wonderland. Alice could wake up from the dream. The constituents of Opposition and Conservative Members will not be waking up. That is the grim reality of the regulations.
There was another element of unreality when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) kept moving in and out like Banquo's ghost. He was the Minister responsible for much of this scheme, but he got out. The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has got to stick to this measure and see it through.
I should like to put again the point that I put to the Minister briefly at the end of the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) arranged the other day. I think that the Government are under the illusion that while they are dealing with the NHS crisis, the crisis about the social fund will not erupt, and that it will come at the end of the year. But the social fund crisis for families and individuals will start from week one, not because the Government have planned it that way but

because officials will be fearful of going over their budgets. No Minister will have sent out a circular saying that those who fail to meet their budgets will not get promotion, but that is what people will feel. So on that side there will be rigorous enforcement, and therefore horror stories will start in the first week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was right in saying that for many people there will be a private grieving and they will go to the moneylenders. One could not find a better example of privatisation, with the Government acting as recruiting sergeant for those backstreet moneylenders who take the child benefit book. Then, if that is not enough, there are the heavies, who will start kicking the door down and pulling people about in the house. We are going to see a massive amount more of that, but that is only the private grieving. We might pick it up in the constituencies, but it will not feature in the media and it is the media that the Government fear.
What the Government will see is the rough stuff in the offices. Already precautions are being taken to strengthen partitions. There are staff who are dreading the start of this scheme, because many of them are decent people and do not want to treat the poor like this, and they are also fearful for their own safety. So far, as the Minister knows, decisions have been taken by a tribunal. Now the woman or the man in the office will have to say no across the office counter.
One can imagine, when children are hungry and without shoes, with electricity cut off in winter, and so on, what the reaction in those offices will be, with no further support available, because perhaps the family has been lucky enough to get a grant or a loan. There will be violence in the offices. Both sides, obviously, will regret it afterwards, but it will be understandable.
It will be worse than that. We saw that with the board-and-lodging allowances, when the deaths began. No one is pretending that the scheme in itself will drive anyone to suicide. Thank God, I do not know much about suicide, but it seems that in this respect it is the straw that breaks the camel's back, and there will be people who find that they just cannot continue with this sort of system. The media will pick up those stories and it will be in the headlines that another victim of the social fund has done himself or herself in. So the Minister must not think that he has a year of seeing this fund in, because those horror stories will start very soon. It will be our job to make sure that our "friends" in the media get hold of those stories, and get hold of them quickly.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not an illustration of the Prime Minister's sick humour that the Minister, who is basically certainly a decent person and a Tory wet, and if he had been on the Back Benches would undoubtedly have been protesting today, is given this task, the most discredited part of the Tory social policy? It is part of the Prime Minister's sick humour.

Mr. Field: We all have to live with ourselves in the cool of the evening and we should leave people to do that.
I beg the Minister not to think that he has time on his side, because he has not. I make a plea for him to draw up contingency plans now.
Two things are required if the social fund is to work, and some of us are not against the principle. The first is that benefits must be set at an adequate level so that people are not budgeting from hand to mouth. Secondly, people


must have the chance, partly with a slightly larger income, to know about saving collectively. I make a plea that the contingency plans will ensure that, if it gets rough and if we get the deaths, the Government will be big enough, before there are too many of them, to put the scheme on ice. The old system, grim as it was, as I have tried to explain, will operate for another three years, but in the meantime there will be attempts to cover the country with credit unions.
The charges made against the Prime Minister are not so much about her personal philosophy, because, strangely enough, many of the people who vote for me would support the business about self-help and self-improvement. But she must understand that people need help to cross that bridge. I went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) recently and there is a credit union there run by a woman who is dying of cancer. It is astonishing the difference it makes when people have real control of their own lives and can make decisions about when to buy and when not to buy. That is all something which the Prime Minister ought to encourage rather than destroy, and it will be destroyed if people are expected to move from utter poverty to lower-middle-class respectability in one short step.
So my plea to all hon. Members is that, before voting, they think a little more openly and honestly about their own expenses and the policing to which we are subjecting the poor. The scheme that we are replacing is far from generous. Words fail me when I try to describe the sort of scheme that we are going to impose on those who have been unfortunate enough to be kicked out of the bottom of our society.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: My objection to the social fund has always been that it is the most harmful feature of the Social Security Act 1986. It is a wholly inadequate replacement for the single payments system, and I believe that the principle behind it is not social wellbeing but financial savings.
The regulations further highlight the many problems that have been identified with the social fund. The fund cannot replace the single payments system, because the grants budget is only a woefully inadequate £60 million, whereas expenditure on single payments was £360 million in 1986. The cut in August 1986 to £190 million may make the grants budget look less miserly, but that appearance is superficial. The result of the cut, and the move away from grants under the social fund, can only be misery and poverty.
I do not believe that the loans system will prevent the slide into further poverty for the vast majority of claimants. Those who are forced to pay back loans out of benefits will face increased hardship, and the whole system will become a bureaucratic nightmare, which I believe is destined to create chaos.
Those paying back loans from their already meagre benefits will not be made more independent; they will just be made poorer. This method of paying back loans will reduce the capacity of those who are already dependent on benefits to take the road to true financial independence, and that is contrary to the Government's avowed aims and intentions.
As a former banker, I have watched people struggle against small loans — struggle to pay rates, mortage,

rent, lighting, heating. They were on steady incomes, but the people we are talking about are not. The amounts that claimants will have to pay back out of their benefits are not insubstantial, as the Government would have us believe, and the amount of time for which a claimant will be forced to live below the poverty line is considerable.
The normal repayment rate will be 15 per cent. of a person's weekly benefits, even for a single person under 25. That will be £3·90 out of the £26·05 that he receives weekly. Perhaps the Government do not realise that £4 is a large amount for someone who is struggling to survive on less than £30 a week. How can a young person be expected to survive in any remotely civilised way on less than £25 for several weeks, especially if he lives in a big city? The prospect is outrageous.
Let me give another example. A single pensioner might have an income made up of £41·15 basic retirement pension and £2–90 income support. If that person borrowed £514·80 for an essential repair to his home, he would have to repay the debt at the maximum rate, £6·60 over a maximum period of 78 weeks. During that period, he would receive no income support, and his pension would be reduced by the amount of the remainder of the debt. That would leave the pensioner with only £37·45 retirement pension for all his living expenses.
The position will become worse when the pensioner is required to pay 20 per cent. of his poll tax. Even before the poll tax is introduced, he will have to pay contributions towards his rates and water rates, which will further reduce the amount that he has to live on to about £34·75.
People in that position will face enough difficulties, but my greatest fear is that a vast number will be forced into the hands of unscrupulous moneylenders. They will be the unfortunate people who have been refused a loan, but are still in desperate need of money. There may be many more who will lose confidence in the system, or will not face the inevitable red tape and means testing, and will instead turn to the "no questions asked" lenders. The exorbitant interest rates charged by those lenders or loan sharks would not be paid by anyone who was not absolutely desperate for money. The fate of those who turn to the loan shark will ultimately be worse, as they will then be plunged into a cycle of debt from which it will be difficult to escape.
The Minister cannot close his eyes to the fact of debt and its effects on people living on or below the poverty line. One survey of people on supplementary benefit found that 56 per cent. of couples with children and 44 per cent. of one-parent families were in debt. Other indicators of debt show the same pattern of widespread borrowing and the problems associated with it. In 1986, a total of 20,550 people had their homes repossessed by building societies through mortgage default. That was an eightfold increase since 1979. The social fund will greatly increase those harrowing statistics, which is a frightening prospect.
The harrowing statistics of which I speak can only provide more work for those already under pressure in the DHSS offices. In my constituency, the DHSS staff are hard-working, dedicated and very compassionate, but to ask them to act as moneylenders and then, obviously, as debt collectors would be too much on top of their massive work load. They will have to do the paperwork before any debt collectors move in.
I am also concerned about other inadequacies in the social fund. For example, deposits to secure accommodation will no longer be available. That will deny people the


chance to live in better accommodation. It is virtually impossible to rent a room or flat in any major city without first providing a fairly substantial deposit. How on earth are people already living on very small amounts supposed to produce the cash? The result will be that people are forced to live in unsuitable accommodation, and, once again, the poorest in our society will be unable to improve the standard of living for themselves and their families because of the Government's meanness.
Not only in the cities, but in the towns, people will be forced to live in substandard accommodation. In my constituency, flat lets are plentiful in winter, but as soon as the holidays start, people have to move out. They will be moving into substandard accommodation, although they are the people who are supposedly within the fund. Young people seeking summer jobs move down into the resorts, and they too will suffer.
The social fund manual decrees that, once a claimant has been refused a payment, he may not reapply for six months unless his circumstances alter. The most unjust feature of that rule is that it applies even when a social fund officer refuses an application because he has no money left in the budget. I have always been opposed to the limited budget, but that feature of the system is grossly unfair. Why cannot the social fund officer tell the unsuccessful claimant to come back in a week? Under this system, the claimant will be told, "Yes, you have a good case for a loan. But go away and come back in six months." It seems that, no matter how urgent or important that person's needs, he will be refused a payment without further explanation unless he chooses to appeal.
I ask the Minister to reconsider that six-month time limit. Indeed, I should like to know whether a review of how the system is working is likely after, say, six months, rather than the 12 months mentioned in the opening speeches.
The appeal system has long been a major sticking point for those of us who oppose the social fund, and the Government have faced embarrassing reversals on the subject in the past. I make no apology for repeating my view that people will have no confidence in a review carried out by the DHSS employee who originally refused their payment. A review should be conducted by an independent tribunal, and in private.
The manual says that an interview will be in private wherever possible, but it should always be in private. Anybody who has to speak about his means should always do so in the privacy of an office rather than in a public place.
How can people believe that their review has been fairly or even accurately considered when they know that the whole point of the social fund is to save money? A potential claimant is further deterred from appealing by the bureaucratic system devised for arranging an appeal. The final appeal to the inspector is hardly better since it is still carried out within the DHSS. Those who are already most disillusioned with our society will be given further reason to distrust the system.
The social fund will lead to increased despair and misery for all those living in poverty. Those already facing despair will be told that the state no longer cares what

happens to them. That is a prospect which I will not support and I urge the House to vote against the regulations.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Our social security system is directed towards two different objectives. The first is to meet entitlement and the second is to meet need. Embedded in the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was a reference, which I welcome, to the difficulty that we all find in differentiating one need from another, and sometimes, somewhat invidiously, having to form impressions on the level of need. To take an example in a different sphere, hon. Members have no direct responsibility for housing applications, but it is remarkable how different are the weight of the claims of various people who write to me, and, I am sure, to others.
In social security matters, despite an understandable and humane wish to do so, it is difficult to cover all the hard cases without some mechanism for controlling the inexorable rise of costs. I elicited more details in a written answer on 17 December 1987 at column 707 of Hansard. The cost of the single payments system, which the social fund will replace, has risen remarkably. On a platform, one could summarise it by saying that the cost has risen fivefold in real terms from £40 million at 1979 prices in that year to approximately £200 million in 1985–86, and similarly in 1986–87.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that he is charting the growth of poverty and the increase in inequality in our society since 1979? Costs have gone up, not because people are getting too much money, but because they are a lot poorer.

Mr. Boswell: I do not share the hon. Lady's easy certainty in the matter, but let me continue to develop the point by analysing the figures.
I readily concede that within that time unemployment has risen sharply, but I cannot correlate the rise in unemployment which, fortunately, is now diminishing equally sharply, with the figures as presented. Until the year 1981–82, when the rise in unemployment was already well under way, the figures were virtually static in real terms at £40 million. Thereafter, they started to rise by approximately 50 per cent. per annum in real terms. That must give any hon. Member cause to consider why that should have happened. No one has a satisfactory explanation for it.
Last year, the Government took certain measures to curb costs within the single payments scheme and, in doing so, made scope for other social changes and items of social spending which have been developing in the recent past, such as, for example, the rapid growth in payments under the attendance allowance, which I welcome, and to which I would like to see further extensions made in due course.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been doing some investigation and analysis of the DHSS figures. Did he do the same sort of analysis of payments to farmers when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Did he attack and seek to reduce them with the same zeal? If so, it appears that he was singularly unsuccessful.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for that magnificently irrelevant comment. I was a mere official, not a Minister, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry was


dedicated, as is the Prime Minister, to reducing the inordinate growth in the common agricultural policy. If we can do that, that too will make more resources available. Therefore, to some extent, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Let me move from that diversion to the business in hand. There is an underlying misunderstanding by the Opposition, although I am sure not a wilful one, of the role and feasibility of budgeting. All of us have to budget, whether in private business or in our private lives. As anyone who has been a Minister is well aware, including the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that applies also during the public expenditure survey. There is no free lunch in Government or outside. On the other hand, when one looks at cash limits one has to ask whether the more dramatic predictions made by Opposition Members can really be fulfilled. I have never yet heard of a Girocheque being bounced. If there is an overrun in any one month, the obligation will be met, but it will give rise to certain management consequences later.
I also welcome the thrust of the proposals as a means of trying to free as many people as possible from an automatic assumption of a client relationship with the state. In saying that, I readily accept that not everybody living at the margins can easily cope with a one-off expenditure—items that were referred to at some length in Committee. I see no reason why such people should not bear a measure of responsibility for the consequences of not being able to put the money down in advance.

Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boswell: No, I have already given way twice and I must continue to make my points so that others can speak.
The difference in the social fund is, first, that such loans, if made available, are interest-free; secondly, they will be accompanied by advice from social fund officers; and, thirdly, unlike the money sharks, social fund officers will be as keen as the clients to ensure that the money is repaid as promptly as possible.
In conclusion, let me examine one or two details of the scheme on which I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment when he replies. In the voluminous list of benefits from which deductions may be made, I see no reference to child benefit, and I should like my hon. Friend's confirmation that I have read the regulations correctly.
Secondly, to go beyond the mere deductions from benefit, we have to record that the state is again going, in a modest way, into the banking business, at the same moment when it intends, rightly, to withdraw from the Girobank system. That will mean running an innovatory low-level banking or credit system. In some cases, particularly if, as we hope, clients can break out of their situation and back into employment, they may not be in receipt of benefits and it may be necessary to find other ways of recovering loans.
I have some small experience of the court order system of attachment of earnings from employees. That functions in a rather archaic way. Employees are obliged to account on a weekly basis for pay, but the employer is obliged to pay on a monthly basis, which automatically creates asymmetry. It is impossible for the employer to pay electronically and a lot of paperwork is involved. Such aspects will need consideration at a later date.
There are three matters, very much in the spirit of the concerns expressed in the debate, about which I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister. The first—I accept that he spoke about this in extenso in Committee—is the training of social fund officers. Clearly that is taking place at the moment, but I hope that it will continue after the day of vesting—as it were—of the fund. I hope that there will be maximum opportunities for consultation, mutual meetings and exchanges of views and experiences between social fund officers in different areas so that a pattern of experience can be established.
Secondly, and following on from that—my remarks are very much a package — we need an adequate publicity campaign to explain what is going on, both to hon. Members, who will have a role to play, and to the public. We shall all have a very busy traffic during the summer and we shall have much explaining to do. It is important that we should form part of the process.
As has been said, the Government must also show a readiness to review the system in the light of developments. It would be useful to have at least a preliminary examination and possibly a debate before the winter sets in to give us an initial snapshot of what is going on.
This is a new scheme. It is an innovation. On the whole, I welcome it, but we need to be ready to learn from experience when it is in place. We need to give a positive commitment to do our best to explain the social fund to our constituents and to contribute to making it work as well as possible.

Mr. Bill Michie: The Minister started by saying that this was the last opportunity that we would have to discuss the regulations, and unfortunately it is. However, more unfortunately, it could be the last hope for many of those whom we represent, who at the moment have a lifeline, albeit a limited lifeline.
There is no doubt that the proposals are unfair, to say the least. They are also undemocratic. It is far from democratic to take from poor people seeking state help the right of appeal. That move has been condemned not only by hon. Members but by just about every organisation dealing with the poor. It has been condemned too by many of the groups that have advised Governments in the past on social services matters. It is bound to place further strain on poor families and on the social services. As was said more than once in Committee, if the strain is pushed more and more on to poorer families, more and more people will go to their local social services departments.
Sheffield is rate-capped. How will the social services department be able to help those driven out of the DHSS offices because they have run out of money, or for whatever reason? I know for a fact that Sheffield will have less section 1 money this year than in previous years. Therefore, the poor families will not be able to get help from either of the public sector bodies. Obviously, if they have any sort of nous, they will get the money one way or another. Unfortunately, they may get money by wrongful means and, perhaps even worse, they may fall foul of the loan sharks, who must be rubbing their hands as they await the implementation of the regulations, which will drag people deeper into poverty.
As I said, the removal of the right to appeal has been condemned all round. In Committee, the Minister said on more than one occasion that it does not really matter, because the fund will not run out. He confirmed that this


afternoon. He is misleading the House if he says that the new fund will be about the same as the present system of single payments. He said that the fund would be near the present single payments budget.
The point is that, since the Government came to power, the budget for the single payments system has been reduced year after year. It is now almost impossible to get single payments. It is said that one has about the same chance of qualifying for a single payment as a 60-year-old has of doing a four-minute mile on one leg. That shows how bad it is in some areas. I could take hon. Members round Sheffield — I am sure this applies to all hon. Members' constituents — and show them flats and bedsits whose occupants are in need of essentials but have been refused single payments. Only last month a young girl who was pregnant at the time came to my office. She had been supplied with a single person's flat by Sheffield council but it had no carpets, no furniture and no bed. Over Christmas that young woman literally slept on bare boards. We tried and tried to get her single payments, but, unfortunately, although she may now get single payments, she decided to have an abortion, which she had not really wanted to do in the first place.
The House should not think that the present system is good; it is bad. All that we are doing now is making matters worse by restricting the meagre resources available to poor people and introducing a very difficult loan system. What sort of appeal is there when someone refused by one officer has to appeal to a senior officer and then to another senior officer—all of them dealing with the same legislation dictated by the Government, so that unless they can find a really technical point they are not in a position to change the initial decision?
The Minister said that the applicant could write to the DHSS office. Many of those who come into my office are not blessed with good writing. They are inarticulate and they are the people who suffer most precisely because of those disabilities. It is disgraceful for the Minister to say that all they have to do is write and put their case. They are not lawyers. They are people at the bottom of the pile who are struggling to make a living and look after their families. But the Minister says, "Put it in writing." The history of the appeals and tribunals system shows that the vast majority of successful cases have been won orally rather than in writing.
Although the Minister said that it might be possible to meet the clients, he hinted that that was not likely. Therefore, we are left with no democratic right of appeal and with a silly system that will make people run round in circles until they give up and are driven to the loan sharks and to despair.
I am sure that in a few months' time it will appear from the statistics trotted out by the Government Departments that the social fund has solved the problem, but the truth is that needy and helpless people will have been pushed out of the equation. The Minister has always been considered a bit of a wet, as was said earlier. Today, he is defending proposals that are as hard as nails. He is justifying proposals that in his heart of hearts he does not believe in. It was obvious in Committee that he was uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he will push the proposals through with some form of what he claims to be credibility. Many are worried about the consequences of the regulations but

none will have the guts to say so. While they do not have the guts to say so, many thousands of families will suffer pain, anguish and despair.
I shall finish on the note on which I started. This is the last opportunity to discuss this matter. I hope that it will not be the last hope for the people whom we represent.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: First, let me respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I disagreed with almost everything that he said, but at least he is one of the few Conservative Members who not only attended the Committee but has made an effort to participate today [HON. MEMBERS: "He was the only one."] Indeed, he was the only one.
The hon. Gentleman described the chaos that will result after 11 April as an increase in business traffic. What a euphemism that was, and what an underestimate of the problems and difficulties that we will face. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the statistics—with which he had trouble—comparing trends in employment with single payments. He cannot have been listening to Opposition Members' arguments about the 19 fiddles of the unemployment figures, or he would not have found it so difficult to comprehend the differences.
The hon. Gentleman said that many poor families would like to show a measure of responsibility by receiving loans. He completely fails to understand how people live their lives and how they want to live their lives. Families on benefit show responsibility every day of the week as a result of the accounting and suffering that they face under the present system.

Mr. Boswell: Although I accept that many families may be in that category, will the hon. Lady accept that some families might be in a position to do something for themselves? Should they not be encouraged to do so?

Ms. Mowlam: I shall answer that question when Conservative Members answer similar questions about many people in the City, with their gross carryings on.
The final point that the hon. Member for Daventry must accept about the loans which he sees as bringing in a measure of responsibility is that they must be paid back. The DHSS offices will give a one-off loan payment, and in the next year must survive on what is paid back. This means that, under the obscene system of loans, payments will decline, and that is why hardship will worsen.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is in the Chamber. I hope that he will not suggest having a national lottery for the social fund as he did for the National Health Service, because that really
I should like to make just three points, because I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak. The first is about grants, to which the Minister referred. It must be said that he was economical with the truth. He says that there will be what he described as "profiling" by the local offices which will, according to the regulations, have two-month periods during which they can consider the nature of the single payments that might be demanded. He said that this will mean that there will be enough money to go round.
I failed to understand that point throughout all the time that the Minister spent trying to explain it in Committee, because if, at the beginning of that two-month period there


is a heavy demand for curtains, carpets, cookers and the other basic needs that cannot wait 28 days if one's family needs to be fed, by the end of the two months the money will have run out.
The Minister says that the officers can shift that period and be flexible by moving it from one part of the year to another, but by the 10th or 11th month there will not be any money left at the local offices. Ministers cannot have it both ways. There is either flexibility within a two-month period, or there is a 12-month period. However, the outcome will be that at the end of that 12-month period no money will be left and people will suffer.
What people will find most difficult to understand is that somebody up the road gets a cooker because it is 2 April, but on 12 May somebody three doors down, who is in exactly the same circumstances, does not get one. Pensioners question why some people should get television licences when others do not, and now some people will get cookers while others who are in exactly the same material circumstances will not. That degree of unfairness and injustice will concern many people, who will find itpay-difficult to understand. I hope that Ministers will have an easier job explaining the position than many of us will have when we encounter exactly those problems. It will be a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We have said that all along, ever since the legislation was introduced, and that, indeed, will he the outcome.
My second point relates to loans. The Government have made much today, and previously, of the fact that the loans will be interest-free. Great. We are then told that in exceptional circumstances 25 per cent. of the loans will be paid back weekly. Ordinarily, 15, 10 or 5 per cent. will be paid back weekly by deductions from benefit. If we are talking about a 10 per cent. pay-back on a weekly basis, that amounts to £7·95 out of benefit. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will explain how a family can pay back £7·95 out of benefit when they are already budgeting carefully.
The Minister talked about the need for flexibility. Will he accept that under the payback system there will be weeks when families will be unable to pay back that £7·95, because of fuel bills and the need to buy clothes for the children? There will be weeks when families will need to make such one-off payments. When the Minister talks about flexibility, let us hear about flexibility not just for his side, not just in terms of administration, but in terms of how the system will work for families. Will the Minister consider flexibility for payback, so that those who have to pay back the loans will be able to do so in a way that means that they can take that measure of responsibility that we are told people should be able to take?
My third point relates to the nature of the reviews. This is important, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. The Minister had the cheek and the affrontery to quote from the debate in the House of Lords in relation to the review procedure. When the Social Security Act 1986 as it now is went through this House and on to another place, an all-party group in the Lords introduced an amendment to suggest that there should be a better appeals system. When that came back to this House, it was rejected. If the Minister quotes from debates in the Lords, he should do so across the board to show how the Lords insisted on the need for a review procedure.
The Minister explained carefully the way in which the review procedure would progress — with a social fund officer and social fund inspector—but he did not answer

the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about where the social fund inspectors would be located. Earlier today we heard the Prime Minister talking about civil servants being moved out of London, so we should like to know where the social fund inspectors will be based. Will it be Birmingham, as has been suggested, or elsewhere? We hope the Minister will reply to that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said, the important point about the review is the need for oral evidence when social fund inspectors consider appeals. I should like the Minister to listen to the statistics for single payments in the north-east region, when an oral appeal was available. He will then see the number of cases that we are talking about. Under the new system, the social fund inspectors will choose whether to have oral evidence. They will sit at their desks and flip through the papers and will not want an oral appeal.
The figures for the north-east region for the year ending 31 March 1987 show that, of the 10,498 single payment appeals, the success rate was 20·4 per cent. The interesting statistics come when one breaks down that success rate. One discovers that where claimants attended — that is, where there was an oral hearing — the success rate increased to 30·5 per cent., and where there was an oral hearing plus a representative assisting the claimant, the success rate increased to 42·2 per cent. That is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley is so correct. That example from the north-east shows that 2,014 people would not have been given single payments if there had not been those oral hearings, with the opportunity of being represented at them.
I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who talked about what the scheme will look like when it comes into operation. We are talking not only about the implementation of the social fund, but about the implementation of the changes in housing benefit and the introduction of the poll tax. We are talking about debts and about the problems that families will encounter, day in day out, of a kind that we have not experienced, even during the recent years of Tory Government.
The Minister tried to pooh-pooh the suggestion that there would be debt difficulties. I shall give him some figures from the Cleveland trading standards department, which found that loan sharks were providing loans at an interest rate of 300 per cent. of annum.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the kind of problems that we have faced in Cleveland during the past two years. About 40 per cent. of people in Cleveland are dependent on some form of supplementary benefit or income support. That problem should be looked at alongside low incomes, because it creates poverty, higher infant mortality — [Interruption.] I am surprised that the Minister finds this an issue worth smiling over. One finds evidence of higher infant mortality. There are also housing problems and problems relating to violence towards children. These problems will become intolerable and unmanageable, and if Ministers were honest they would acknowledge that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House for me to say that I understand that the Front-Bench speakers will seek to rise at 6.30. As several hon. Members wish to take part, perhaps those called would bear that in mind.

Mr. John Battle: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) spoke of the impact of the social fund being a 25 per cent. reduction in payments in her area. When the Minister replied, he seemed to suggest that that was a special case. Well, I must remind him that, as in many constituencies throughout Britain, the introduction of the social fund will mean a massive reduction in payments in my constituency. In fact it will mean about a 50 per cent. reduction.
The single payments budget of the last comparable figures for 1985–86 was £1,750,000. The projected budget for the social fund includes a grants budget of £141,000 and a loans budget of £327,000—a reduction of more than £500,000. I should like to know how the Minister will square those cuts with his view that people will continue to get payments.
The social fund manual makes it plain that the major concern is not about meeting the needs of people but of remaining within the budget. Social fund officers are reminded that they
will sometimes be obliged to refuse applications in order to meet higher priorities within the budget.
It is clear that there are higher priorities than tackling poverty. That is what the Minister is telling the poor in Britain by supporting the proposals.
On 11 April when the regulations come into force and when all the statistics and budget figures become real people, we shall have to face those people in the homes and the streets around us. They will turn up at our advice surgeries wanting to know to whom they should turn, and where they should go to get help and assistance to pay for their ordinary daily lives.
We are not talking about the people to which the Secretary of State for Social Services referred, who will have to give up their second holiday to pay for their health, or the people to whom the Secretary of State for the Environment referred, who might want to let out their extra houses. We are talking about the poorest in our society—the young unemployed, the single parents and the pensioners who make up about 30 per cent. of the population in Britain and should be treated as part of society.
I am reminded of the lobby which I attended before I became a Member of Parliament, during the review of social security. Members of Parliament were being challenged about the details. One response to a person who asked the Members about the proposals was that she should not get too involved, because social security issues were too complicated for Ministers and Members of Parliament to understand, never mind the general public. That disabled lady replied, "I remind Members of Parliament that those of us who have to pay the daily price can do the arithmetic, and so should Members of Parliament." So should the Ministers.
The proposals exclude the poor in our society from the Budget and, therefore, from society. Conservative Members echo the classic Victorian response to the poor, which is to blame the victims for their plight. Conservative

Members need to face the reality that the loss of a partner through death or through the breakdown of a relationship can plunge an individual or a family into poverty. Real poverty means that, in practice, for most weeks families do not have enough money to live on, as the London Weekend Television survey showed. Not even that well-known television commentator and former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Matthew Parris, could live for a week on unemployment benefit. Fortunately, after that week he was lucky enough to go back to his job without the compounded debts that he had outstanding from one week on the dole.
Worst of all is the intolerable scandal of all the Budget talk from Conservative Members and the press about the millions of pounds that the Chancellor has to give away in tax cuts on 15 March. It is an insult to the poor to talk about the national wealth and suggest that it should be used for tax cuts for the better-off. It will hit the poor smack in the face to hear those expressions. The Government treat people like donkeys. They provide a carrot for the rich and say that they need tax cuts as incentives, but the poor get the big stick. Again, the Government's approach is deliberately divisive. It is strange that if one is rich one can live on credit but woe betide anyone who is poor who gets into debt, although both are borrowing money.
One of the papers that I examined before the debate was the Conservative research department's document "Reform of the Welfare State" published in June 1985. It defines the central objectives for reforms of the welfare state and states:
It is of paramount importance that these objectives should not conflict with the Government's overall strategy for national economic recovery.
It goes on:
It would be self-defeating if the cost grew to such an extent that the wealth-producing sector on which this provision rests, was jeopardised. That practical consideration reinforces the strong Conservative conviction that individual self-reliance should be increased".
That is the bedrock for the Government's policies and for today's proposals.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that people should be made to face the consequences of not being able to put money by. That seems to suggest that the poor are to blame and should pay the price and be excluded while the wealthy get wealthier.
I remind the House that the Government should not assume that poverty in our society is the result of misfortune or bad luck, that it is inevitable or due to laziness, ignorance or lack of development. Poverty is a direct result of the political and economic policies of the Government. The poverty in our society is not accidental or an act of God, but has been created, indeed manufactured—I am tempted to use that 19th century word as the Government hark back to Victorian values.
Not far from the House, a cinema in town is showing the film "Little Dorrit". I recommend that film to Conservative Members. If they do not have time to see it they could read the book on the train because the first part is entitled "The Poor" and the second part is entitled "The Rich". The proposals will create exactly that Dickensian division and take us back beyond the poor laws. Poverty is not accidental. It is being created and manufactured by political policies. Poverty in our society is the result of callous, inhuman Budget policies.
I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to put the poor back into the Budget, because if they are excluded from the Budget they are being offered only the callous freedom to which the hon. Member for Daventry referred—the freedom to go hungry and to starve.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Years ago, I was told a story by my mother about my grandmother who was left a widow, looking after four daughters. That was in the days before the welfare state. One Saturday morning, they were sitting around the table eating a hot supper which had been provided by the parish of St. Luke's church in the centre of Liverpool. There was a knock at the door. The parish relief officer had arrived. He looked around at the children having their hot supper and said, "Mrs. Mallon, you obviously do not need any assistance from the parish because the children are being looked after."
I tell that story because the Government, and in particular the introduction of the social fund, are creating such a society. The Minister refuted that, and said that people would not have to go to charity. However, he did say that DHSS officers should have to take account of resources being made available from other sources. What are the other sources if they are not relatives? The pressure will be on the voluntary organisations and the churches to provide what should be provided by the state. If the Government went back to the principles of Beveridge or Nye Bevan they would accept that the state should be responsible for the collective provision for those in the community who are worst off.
The Government tell us that, under their regime, single payments have increased year by year. In the social fund draft manual the Government say:
The Government consider a number of factors including likely need for payments and the general economic climate in setting the overall size of the fund for any particular year".
The Government consider that such factors are important. This is a Government who have been loud in voicing their opinion that the economy is buoyant and that everything is going well. Therefore, we should be looking for a greater share of that wealth. However, many of us doubt the truth of the Government's claims. Any distribution of wealth should take account of those who are poorest and weakest in our society, but what is happening in reality? Let us consider some of the figures for the DHSS offices in my constituency.
In 1985–86 the Norris Green DHSS office paid out £689,716 in single payments. What has that office been allocated under the social fund in the first year of its operation? Its allocation is £124,393—less than 20 per cent. of what it paid in 1987 in single payments. In 1985–86, the West Derby DHSS office paid out £711,166 in single payments. That office's allocation for next year is £150,053 — less than 25 per cent. of what is paid in 1987 in single payments.
Many hon. Members will not have heard of Norris Green. It is true that they will have heard of West Derby because they have heard me speak so often. However, they will all know Toxteth. That area is not in my constituency, but it is well known because of the riots that took place there. The conditions that will arise from the social fund may result in a similar set of circumstances to those that

led to the riots in 1981. The Government should not be surprised if they find that the events of 1981 are repeated as people are driven into dire poverty.
What is the Government's solution for Toxteth? In 1985–86,Toxteth DHSS office paid out £2,138,792 in single payments. Its allocation for the first year's operation of the social fund is £346,814—that is a 16·2 per cent. allocation in comparison to what is paid out in single payments in 1987. That is a measure of the Government's meanness. Indeed, at this very moment they are preparing to demonstrate their largesse to the rich of our society with tax handouts.
What makes the Government believe that tax handouts to the rich are a rightful incentive, but that it is wrong to give a decent supplement to those who are in dire need? They are prepared to give money to the scroungers and the City slickers—the people who donate to and finance the Tory party. They are the people to be sustained by Exchequer handouts.
So often we have pleaded with the Government to change their mind and to reconsider. I am perfectly convinced that the social fund is part of their punitive exercise against the poor. It is part of their plan. No one should be under any illusion that the Government are trying to recreate the one nation of Disraeli, let alone the Socialism of Nye Bevan. The Government want to divide our country to make sure that we return to the thirties—not the 1930s, but the 1830s.
I hope that constituents throughout the country—not only those represented by my hon. Friends—will show their contempt for the Government. It is a Government who are prepared to bale out the fraudulent people of the City but who care not one iota for the poor. If the Ministers had any conscience they would not be prepared to go down in history as part of a Government who took us back to the dark ages. They should do the honourable thing and resign.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I wish to say a few words about maternity grant. The Minister of State has pointed out that, under the regulations, an expectant or new mother will be able to get a grant of £85. He implied that that was an extremely generous amount because the old maternity grant was £25. However, the Minister of State omitted to say that, until last April, the same mother could qualify for single payments amounting to £188 for necessities as evaluated by the Minister's Department. Therefore, the true comparison is not £85 versus £25, but £188 versus £85.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the needs a mother may have. For instance, there is a need for maternity clothes. A maternity dress is not simply a frivolous wish: it is necessary because she cannot get into her clothes. A mother will also need a pushchair and a high chair. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has already told us how people are forced to sit and sleep on the floor. No doubt babies can learn to crawl more quickly if they do not have the luxury of chairs.
Perhaps it could be argued that a pushchair is unnecessary—one can always carry a baby, or indeed, one need not take it out! Fire guards are necessary, but some parents will be unable to afford the fuel so there will be no need for such a guard. Safety gates are an obvious luxury. Just as the poor parents must budget so expertly, so the infants must learn to walk safely about the house


without the benefit of a safety gate. The Under-Secretary of State yawns. I know it is terribly boring and I know that I am going over the top. I am doing so because in his life he never has, nor ever will have, to exist in the circumstances facing the people to whom the regulations apply. It is boring in the abstract, but it is horrible to live it.
The Minister of State said that Lord Denning had described the social fund and the arrangements for review instead of appeal as simple, fair and—I believe that the Minister used the word—just. I am waiting eagerly to learn from the Under-Secretary what is fair about a system that will ensure that two people will be treated differently, not because of different circumstances, but because they live in different areas or have applied at different times. How is that just or fair? It is certainly simple. There is nothing more simple than the word no. That word will be increasingly employed when the social fund is operating.
We have been told about the review, and how a case can be reviewed again by a senior officer, and then by a social fund inspector. But the Minister will recall that it was drawn from him in Committee that the only person who has responsibility for managing the budget is the social fund officer who gave the original decision. So the other people who have the task of reviewing have no responsibility for managing the budget— the Minister said that in Committee. So he admitted, by implication, that such people have no right or ability to overturn the decisions of the social fund officers, because they will not have to find the money for the next applicant, and they will surely bear that in mind.
My hon. Friends have spoken a great deal about the money running out. When making these forecasts, we must be careful. I do not know whether the money will run out, but the definitions of priority will be changed. People will not be told they are being refused because the money has run out; they will be told they are refused because the priority of their case is not high enough, and that other people are even poorer.
Others will not apply for a loan because they are scared of going into debt—the old bogey of the poor. Only the middle class can look on debt with equanimity. Then there will be people who are refused because they are too poor to repay the loan. There will be many expedients to avoid the embarrassment of the Government's having to say that the money has run out. But not enough money will be going into the pockets of the poor. Not enough money is being put into the fund. The Government keep telling us that the amount equals the single payments. They equate loans with grants, but when it comes down to it, loan or grant, the money in the social fund will be much less than the money paid out in single payments the year before last, before the Government started making all the adjustments in preparation for this manipulation.
I hope that there will not be too much smugness on the Government Front Bench. I hope they will realise that they have little to say except, perhaps, that the country is rich but they are so poor at budgeting that they cannot manage to find the money to give the poor a reasonable standard of living.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If this debate has been significant, it has been so for a number of reasons,

not least because the Minister began by saying that this was not one of the most popular measures that the Government are proposing. If we needed evidence of that, it is to be found in the absence of speeches by Members of the Conservative party, with the exception of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who gave the appearance of having been discovered somewhere behind a haystack defending the EEC social fund—for that is what he seemed to be talking about. The fund he seemed to be describing was a great deal more generous and, perhaps, more attractive to the farmers in his constituency than this social fund will be to the poor people of this country.
We have had only two speeches from Government Members to go on, and the message that came across from them was that we need a social fund because so many people are selfish and lack the work ethic that they need this measure of discipline. I find that appalling at a time when benefits worth £1,000 million a year are not taken up by people who are legally entitled to the money. I should prefer the Minister to use his time with his hon. Friends to promote the need for people to claim their rights, instead of restricting the resources that are available by means of these measures.
The regulations must be seen, as my hon. Friends have said, in the context of the attacks of the Social Security Act 1986 and the so-called Fowler review; and they come on top of the freezing of child benefits, the mean-minded attitude even to school meals and the drastic cuts in housing benefit which have had a severe impact on many people. This is not an attack on poverty: it is a raid on the impoverished. The very people who, by definition, are the poorest in our society are being denied even the right to exercise their civil rights. We heard that in the ludicrous way in which the Minister tried to explain the internal appeal procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to the unreality of the Conservative contributions to the debate. Of course, he was right. The Government have been completely unable to justify the removal of the safety net that society seeks to provide, in order to justify their cash limits, which are based not on need but on rigid cash control. That control has been influenced by the Treasury and by a Secretary of State who has just come from those quarters. The removal of the right to an independent appeal seems to have had no proper defence. Replacing grants by discretionary loans has not been sufficiently explained either, to the House or the country. The Government give the impression that all the people who gave them advice — even though the Government deliberately restricted the time available—were wrong and that they are right.
These measures will place an intolerable burden on social service and social work departments at a time when they can least shoulder it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, we cannot ignore the placing of vulnerable families in even greater jeopardy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned the views of the Spastics Society which, together with a large number of other voluntary organisations, is concerned about the social fund, —despite the Minister's reassuring tone. The Spastics Society is particularly concerned about what is expected from voluntary organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, the Government have placed much emphasis not on facing


their own responsibilities, as the taxpayers would want them to do, but on telling us to look to the churches, the charities and voluntary organisations.
I invite the Minister to comment on the views of the Spastics Society, as expressed today:
We are aware that Spastics Society social work managers have already been approached by local DHSS offices with inquiries about what money we have available to make grants. It would be hard to believe that this information is being sought only in the remote possibility that it would be inappropriate for the Social Fund, itself, to provide help in a crisis for someone with cerebral palsy. We consider it likely that the DHSS is planning, right from the start, to refer community care grant and budgeting loan applicants to us for help.
The Spastics Society and other voluntary organisations are entitled to a reply.
In his attempts to justify cash limits, the Minister said that the Government are by no means certain that the fund will run out. That is an incredible proposition. We already know about the sums that have been provided to local offices. We already know that, in spite of the single payments of 1986, there has, in effect, been a 50 per cent. reduction in the global sum being made available for the social fund. Of that, only a third would be considered for grants; the rest will go in loans. For the Minister to tell us that social fund officers and local DHSS managers will stand like Mr. Micawber waiting for something to turn up is entirely unacceptable, given the problems that face local offices and communities.
I shall not weary the House with the global social fund figures that are available. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), gave the impression during a radio programme in which we both took part that only areas where heavy demands have been made on the DHSS will be subject to reductions. The truth of the matter is that those areas will be subject to reductions, although their demands are growing and their needs are clearly identified. If there is increased unemployment in Scotland, Wales, the north of England and the inner cities, the figures should reflect those needs and demands, but they do not.
In Coatbridge, in my constituency, in 1986 the amount of benefit that was paid per head under the single payment system was £163·50. Under the allowance, grants will be reduced to £29·47p per head and grants and loans combined will be £98·82p. In Bathgate, the 1986 figure was £160, but it is now down to £15·22p and the total for grants and loans is £51·26p. In Bradford, West the 1986 figure per head was £82·40p, but that is now down to £13·76p for grants, and the combination of loans and grants is £46·11p. The story is the same in Chester-le-Street, Edinburgh, East, Bristol and other areas. There is no justification for those reductions.
When the Minister gave a pathetic outline of people's rights for reassessment he ignored the fact—the House cannot follow him in this—that these regulations will mean that a person's right to seek an independent review of an application that has been refused has now been removed. There will now be an internal review.
We were not told, in spite of pressure from a number of my hon. Friends, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), where the social fund inspectors will work from. If the rumour is true that it will be in Birmingham, or that the work is to be centralised, that is appalling. The Minister is suggesting that the only way in which people can appeal — I use that word as

loosely as the Government intend it to be used—is to do so in writing, to have it considered in writing and to have no oral input whatsoever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heely (Mr. Michie) rightly underlined the importance of the number of people who have been successful at tribunals. He contrasted the tribunals that will consider only paperwork with those that have been able to hear witnesses and take oral evidence. What the Government are suggesting is a disgrace and a denial of fundamental and basic human rights.
The regulations deal with recovery by deductions from benefit, which is a euphemism for loans instead of grants. Before a social fund officer takes a decision he must consider whether a person has the ability or income to repay a loan, however deserving the case may be. When the Government tell us about targeting, are we not entitled to ask how that will work? We know that the poorest in our society will not be considered as a good risk. The commercial judgments that will be made will be most unhelpful.
If the Minister doubts that that is a wide interpretation of Government thinking, I refer him to the notorious directions 11 and 22, which make it clear that no crisis loan and no budgeting loan
may be awarded in excess of the amount that the applicant is likely to repay.
We know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, that some people will be asked to repay loans—from their very limited incomes—at a rate of 10 per cent. That will involve a family with two children repaying £7·90 a week. That family could do a great deal with £7·90. It could buy a pair of shoes or some extra furniture or lino. The Government's decision will be regarded by the public as a scandal, particularly as we approach 11 April.
The Minister is aware that there has been little support for this measure, not only in the debate — only one Conservative Member vocally supported the Government — but from people who will have to deal with these matters day after day. There is no support from the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Child Poverty Action Group or local social service and social work departments, who are aware of the issues involved and who know that the reality, once the fund is pursued, is that there will be greater demands on social services because more children will find themselves in care. We know that the Government are not taking on board the problems of the elderly, the sick, disabled people and others. The absurd £60 million community care grant is in no way regarded as a substitute for the daily demands that those departments must meet.
It would be interesting if the Minister could tell the House how many people support his measure. He knows that it is not supported by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which was appointed by the Government. When the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled rather curtly told it that, despite all its advice, the Government were going ahead with the fund, it said—these are the words of Mr. Peter Barclay—
At the Committee's request I am writing to place on record that this decision is without our support.
No Labour Member will be surprised by that.
The social fund attempts to divide the deserving from the undeserving — the haves from the have-nots. The Government seek to ration compassion by monthly


instalments. If they have provided a safety net at all, it is one that runs out two thirds of the way along the tightrope. It is a plan for misery on the never-never. It cannot be right that citizens, far from being protected against their poverty, are being punished and penalised because of its very existence.
I remind the Minister that this measure is about people who are entitled to legal rights and who are entitled to enjoy the concern and compassion of the House. So far, the Government have not shown concern or compassion and, because of the anger about the measures that they are seeking to impose on the most impoverished, we are determined to oppose the regulations. In that spirit, I ask for the support of my hon. Friends and the rest of the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): It was well understood among hon. Members that the debate would range widely, and I make no complaint about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked a specific question about the regulations: whether deductions could be made from child benefit. I confirm that deductions for social fund loans will not be made from child benefit or from attendance or mobility allowance. Those benefits are paid for specific purposes. The intention is that deductions should be made from income maintenance benefits — income support in particular, but other income maintenance benefits as well. The other points that my hon. Friend raised have been well taken.
Another specific point that arose concerned social fund inspectors and where they will be based. They will be based, along with the social fund commissioner, in Birmingham. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was concerned about that. I think that he felt that they would not be sufficiently mobile, or some such problem. The hon. Member for Monklands, West and some of his hon. Friends are concerned about consistency. It is important that a body of social fund inspectors with some responsibility for the consistency of decision-making should be in touch with each other. The hon. Member will see the good sense of their being based more or less in the centre of the country.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) spoke about interviews. It is intended that, as a normal practice, interviews should be held in private. The social fund manual must cover all eventualities. It must cover the possibility that, if an interview were requested urgently and there was no private place in which to hold it, a difficulty might occur.

Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) have managed to squeeze from the Minister the remarkable announcement that the inspectorate will be based in Birmingham. If that is so, when discussions are held, people would have to travel to Birmingham from, for example, Airdrie, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Will the Minister confirm that that is not a final decision and that there will be discussions?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has a different understanding of the word "based". The inspectors will have an office in Birmingham, but that does not mean that they will run all their operations from there. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has met the social fund commissioner, but she realises that her job will require her to move around a great deal.
About £8,000 million a year will be spent on supplementary benefit. Over the years, supplementary benefit has acquired a series of additional requirements payments, which have grown on to the structure like barnacles on to a ship. That has created a number of difficulties which the reforms will address. It has made the social security system extremely difficult to manage. I understand the criticisms made against the system concerning delays, but Labour Members must accept that, to a large extent, those are due to the complicated system which we have tried to operate by having additions for every conceivable need and demand over and above basic needs.
The system has become unfair because people are receiving additions, not so much by virtue of their need as by virtue of their skill as claimants. The range of benefits is falling unevenly between one set of claimants and another. The system is being wrapped up and a simpler system introduced. As a result of the change, the Government are not putting less money into income support than is available in supplementary benefit; they are putting in more money over and above that and an amount to provide transitional protection for those who might otherwise lose.

Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: I shall deal with the hon. Lady's point in a moment.
The single payments system is a special case of a buildup of an addition to basic supplementary benefit, which has created a number of problems, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred. There has been an enormous growth in real terms in expenditure on single payments from £67 million in 1979–80 to £346 million in 1985–86. Between 1981 and 1984–85, the costs increased by almost four times in real terms and the numbers of payments by three times.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) believes that the increase in payments has been due to an increase in poverty, but I must challenge that. The total number of claimants receiving regular weekly help increased by less than three fifths between August 1979 and August 1985, but the number of single payments increased by 3·5 times. That is not an increase in poverty. During that period, the real rates of supplementary benefit have been rising and the increased prosperity of the country has filtered down to the lowest quintiles of society. There has been an increase in the standard of living, even among the poorest quintiles of society.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister claims that there has been a trickling down effect. There has been a change in the composition in the lowest quintile, largely because increasing numbers of people have been pushed into unemployment and because some pensioners have occupational pensions which have taken them out of that quintile. Does the Minister agree that, since 1979, the


increase in the number of people drawing supplementary benefit has been greater than the whole of the increase between 1948 and 1979?

Mr. Portillo: I have given the hon. Gentleman the facts since 1979. There has been a much greater increase in single payments than there has been in the supplementary benefit caseload. There has been a change in the composition of the lowest quintile, but that quintile has increased its standard of living.

Mrs. Beckett: Has the Minister seen a recent document published by the Family Policy Studies Centre entitled "Family Fortunes" which shows that the standard of living of people with children has fallen?

Mr. Portillo: Is the hon. Lady aware that there were a number of misunderstandings in that document and that my Department has written to that organisation explaining why the figures are wrong? I do not believe that that is in dispute between us.
The Government are putting in £100 million more to help families on income support and £200 million more is being put into family credit, by comparison with the family income supplement, which it replaces. Much of the debate has centred on the question of the refusal of social fund loans.
The hon. Member for Redcar was concerned that the Department might run out of money. It is precisely because we have great experience of the way in which the single payment, scheme operates that we are confident that social fund officers will be able to profile adequately to meet high priorities throughout the year. I have repeated that point to the hon. Lady and I do not know why she has not yet understood that the money will not run out. Social fund officers will organise their priorities to meet needs throughout the year.
The Government will put £203 million into the social fund. That is about the amount of money being spent in the current year on single payments. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that, on 11 April, there will be some sort of cataclysm, but I find that idea farfetched. The amount of money being made available in the coming year is the same amount of money being spent during the present year. Expenditure in the present year has been inflated by a sort of closing down sale, as people have been anxious to obtain single payments before the system is replaced.
There has been considerable controversy in this and previous debates about the sums of money allocated to different offices. So far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) cannot know how much money has been spent by the office in her district this year. She is right to say that the social fund allocation is less than the amount of money spent by her office on single payments in 1986–87. Given the pattern throughout the country that the amount of money being spent on single payments is about the same amount of money that we shall put into the social fund, I expect that the social fund of the office in Stoke Newington will receive more or less what is being spent this year.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that the social fund will cause problems in constituencies such as mine because, first, people will not be able to get money for gas and electricity? They will be able to get money for fuel costs

—only for Calor gas and paraffin. People in Hackney, who largely live in council accommodation, are advised riot to use Calor gas or paraffin, so they can get money out of the social fund only for heating which they have been advised is dangerous.
The second problem is that they will not get money to put a deposit on private accommodation, so they will not be able to get private accommodation. Thirdly, the discretionary element in the allocation of the social fund will provide scope for all kinds of prejudices.

Mr. Portillo: The social fund is not intended to provide for things which are already provided for, and gas and electricity are covered under the fuel direct scheme. As for deposits, if the hon. Lady speaks to her constituents they may confirm what I hear up and down the country—that the availability of money for deposits has led to widespread abuse by landlords, and many claimants are concerned about that.
During the debate, the Opposition have found many shortcomings in the social fund and our reforms, but throughout the period we have been discussing the reforms to social security the Labour party has pursued a very ambivalent approach. Labour Members have not mounted a defence to the present system or offered us an alternative. They have invested much energy and time in attacking the social fund because they believe that the social fund will lead to a massive cut in the money available. They have now discovered that the social fund will have as much money as is being paid in single payments this year. In that sense, the Opposition's fox has been well and truly shot.
In 1985, we had a statement of the Government's intentions on the reforms and the Green Paper. A statement on the White Paper was published towards the end of that year, and three Bills have been discussed. We have had two statements, two Opposition Day debates and one set of regulations today. The social fund has been discussed ad infinitum. During all that time, no alternative to the social fund has been put forward by the Opposition and no argument has been made against establishing the greater equity between those on benefits and those just off benefits which would be brought about by a loan system. No convincing case has been made against loans. The time has come to bring the social fund into operation. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 270.

Division No. 187]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bidwell, Sydney


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buckley, George J.


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett, Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob






Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Coleman, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McCartney, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cox, Tom
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, John
McTaggart, Bob


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eadie, Alexander
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliott


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


Galbraith, Sam
Patchett, Terry


Galloway, George
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Graham, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Robertson, George


Hardy, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rogers, Allan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, Jeff


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rowlands, Ted


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Holland, Stuart
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


John, Brynmor
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lewis, Terry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Vaz, Keith





Wall, Pat
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N.
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Tellers for the Ayes


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Curry, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Farr, Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heddle, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)






Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hume, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irving, Charles
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jackson, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Squire, Robin


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Lilley, Peter
Stokes, John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhiil)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Mike


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Rate Limitation

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That the draft Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1988, which was laid before the House on 12th February, be approved.
The order, which specifies rate limits for 12 of the authorities subject to rate capping in 1988–89, marks the end of a process which began in July last year. It may assist the House if I briefly outline that process.
I announced last July that I had designated 17 authorities under part 1 of the Rates Act. They were budgeting to spend from 13 up to 112 per cent. above their grant-related expenditure assessment; and those which were newly selected were budgeting to increase their spending by 8 to 21 per cent. on the previous year's budget. Also in July, each authority was informed of the expenditure level determined for it. The authorities were given until mid-October to apply, if they wished, for the expenditure level to be increased. Two authorities did so, and in one case — Tower Hamlets — I agreed to redetermine the expenditure level at a higher figure.
On 9 December I notified all 17 authorities of the proposed rate limits for 1988–89 and gave them the opportunity to accept those proposals or to make representations about the matter. Three authorities did, in fact, accept their limit within the statutory period ending on 15 January; these were Manchester, Middlesbrough and Kingston upon Hull.
After considering all the representations from authorities, and all the other relevant information, I took the view that I would be prepared to agree a higher figure than that proposed in December for five authorities. Two of these — Greenwich and Hackney—agreed to accept the new figures. This makes a total of five authorities where a rate limit has been fixed by agreement. It leaves 12 out of the original 17 where the limit needs now to be specified by order—and these are the ones named in the draft now before the House.
I should add that, even among the 12 authorities specified here, one—Tower Hamlets—has notified me that it does in fact accept the limit specified for it. It is only because that acceptance fell outside the statutory period that the authority has to be included in the order. So the essence of the order is about 11 of the original 17 rate-capped authorities which did not feel able to agree with me the figure that I put forward for their rate limit for the coming financial year.
I have set out this potted history of the year's process because I think it will help the House to see that it has been conducted in a very considered and reasonable manner. Had it not been so, I doubt whether six authorities would have come to the conclusion that they could accept what I had proposed. All this is a far cry from the first time the House debated a rate limits order back in 1985. Then, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is not in the House at the moment, said:
the Secretary of State … is creating a tragedy and a constitutional crisis that he, this Government and the Department of the Environment will live to regret till the end of time."—[Official Report, 25 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 82.]
Time has not come to an end, but the hon. Gentleman has not even come to the debate.

Dr. John Cunningham: That cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. My hon. Friend is in Committee on the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Hackney has accepted the rate limit proposed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Of course I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that he should be here. We all have our priorities.

Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend cannot be here and in Committee at the same time.

Mr. Ridley: I respect the hon. Gentleman's priorities enormously, and I admire them. I think that he has his priorities right. I could not make a more handsome apology.
It is three years on, and the audience must still be waiting for the curtain to go up on the tragedy, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch described it. The constitution has not crumbled. The Government certainly have no cause for regret. Indeed, the local authority in which the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies is not even included in the draft order, because the council has calmly accepted the rate limit that I proposed for it. The Government's policy has stayed the same, but clearly times have changed to catch up with it, since so many people in local government are now prepared to operate calmly within the framework of that policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may say that the tragedy has not happened nationally. Perhaps he would address himself to Southwark, which asked for a higher rate level. The effect of the rate support grant supplementary report which the House approved last night, and of today's marginal increase accorded by the Secretary of State, is a £2·7 million reduction in the money that Southwark will receive for the coming year, and it cannot add to it. That is a 5 to 10 per cent. cut in real services, and many people are suffering. Does the Minister not realise that, although calamity has not struck him, for many old, young and vulnerable people the effect of the order will be severe disadvantage, when they are already in a dire state?

Mr. Ridley: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that all the factors, including the rating order that was debated yesterday, are taken into account in setting the limit. The funny thing about the hon. Gentleman is that although he often makes similar points about his borough, I have never heard him mention its ratepayers, who also need to be taken into account.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for Southwark, if it is so hard up, to spend £13,800 on a reggae concert for Black Solidarity day?

Mr. Ridley: That is not a factor that I took into account in reaching my decision, because it is the first that I have heard of it. I do not think that it constitutes new evidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.
In considering the order, the House may also want to bear in mind the extent to which the times have changed in some of the local authorities that are named, and in other authorities with a similar background. I have touched on the early history of rate capping, the terrible warnings sounded in the Chamber, and the cries of outrage from some quarters of local government. A recent account of this phase of rate capping tells us that Left-wing councils

saw the scope for politicising support for council services around the anti-cuts campaigns. If they publicised the potential cuts long and hard enough, local people would rise up to save the services"—
rather like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)
Looking back it is astonishing to think how naive it was for nearly everybody on the local government Left to consider that people could be so easily politicised around such a disingenuous tactic. These phoney wars reached their nadir with the 1985 ratecapping campaign.
Those are not my words. I hope that Opposition Members do not find the assessment contentious, because it is from a publication called "Labour Councils in the Cold", which was produced by a body called the Labour Coordinating Committee. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is reading it and, I hope, learning from it. He has a great deal to learn from it. I do not think that he will find it unpalatable, although some of his hon. Friends from the Left of the Labour party might find it a bit prickly-making.
I do not know whether the publication is Bennite or not, but it has such insight that I cannot resist sharing it further with the Opposition. It calls on Labour councils
to desist from taking rates from people's pockets when they are not getting value for it.
It continues:
We owe it to the consumers who need our services, are willing to pay good money for them, but just want the services delivered properly. The new challenge to labour councils is to improve services despite the cuts.
That is wise advice, with which I agree. I am sure that Opposition Members, who are better placed to judge, will agree with the booklet's dictum that there is nothing Socialist about inefficiency, incompetence or waste. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will agree with the same sentiment, more quaintly expressed by the leader of Hackney council, who said that inefficiency is organized theft from the working-class.

Mr. Stuart Holland: It is astonishing that the Secretary of State has spent his time so far in knock-about students' union debating points. When he says that boroughs should be able to improve the quality of service with cuts, he should make an analogy with a private enterprise firm whose cash flow is cut, and whose self-financing and investment powers are cut as well. In the private sector such an enterprise would go out of business.

Mr. Ridley: That is a schoolboy debating point. It is not a matter of competition. If the overheads of private sector companies are too high and their cash flow is wrong, they go out of business. Local authorities are expected to get those things right through the discipline of the rates or, if it comes to it, the discipline of rate limitation. That is why we are here this evening.
My colleagues and I have held meetings with nine local authorities which wanted to see us about their proposed limits. Many of them provided us with useful information about the circumstances of their authority. Not all of them persuaded us that it would be appropriate to agree a rate limit higher than that originally proposed, but nearly all of them sought to impress on us that they were already taking steps to trim their expenditure to match their resources, and to improve the efficiency of their operations.
If these conversions are sincere, as the hon. Member for Copeland might believe, he must be as relieved as I am that a new realism has dawned. It may be because of the events


of last June, or it may be, as I prefer to believe, the realisation at last that the Government's policy on the control of local authority current expenditure is indeed sensible.
I do not want to detract from what many of these councils have told us that they have embarked upon. I have not hesitated to criticise the wasteful spending of some of them in the past, or their delay in making the necessary savings to live within their means. I have not been slow to criticise their use of so-called "creative accounting", which has simply exacerbated the problems. I gladly acknowledge, however, that many of the authorities seem to be taking, or squaring up to, those long-overdue decisions to cut costs and improve efficiency. They undoubtedly have a very long way to go, but they seem to be making a start.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On the assumption that the Secretary of State welcomes the £5 million to £6 million economies that the London borough of Camden has made in revenue spending on its housing estates, will he say whether it is a sensible incentive for the Government to reduce Camden's housing subsidy by £5 million, thus wiping out all the savings?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing current account, which we are talking about in relation to rate limitation, with the completely separate capital account. I am not prepared tonight to go into the circumstances of individual authorities because it is not the practice—[Interruption.]—in arriving at rate limits to give the detailed reasons or sums that were in my mind when I came to a conclusion. I am not prepared to depart from that principle now.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In making these calculations, do the wishes of an electorate supporting a party that sets out its manifesto in a local authority election come into the Secretary of State's mind?

Mr. Ridley: The considerations that have to be in my mind are enshrined in the statute. I am simply operating a statute that was passed by the House of Commons. I shall give the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) the same reply that I gave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)— that I have to operate and make my decisions entirely in accordance with the Rates Act 1984. It is all set out there. The hon. Member for Southall was probably active in the House when that measure was debated and ought to know exactly how I have to conduct myself in making the order.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rare, if not unprecedented, for a local government election address or manifesto to pledge that a party will raise the rates by 15 or 25 per cent.? Where only the expenditure side is presented, that obviously will confuse the electorate.

Mr. Ridley: Some of them do not even worry, because as few as 20 per cent. of the electorate are ratepayers. I hope that position will soon be remedied.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Ridley: This will be the hon. Gentleman's second, and last, intervention.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept, though, that the great difference is that the ratepayers of any borough or district can hear their budget debated in

public and in detail, whereas tonight one order relates to many authorities and the determination of all their finances? The Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible for their budgets, says that he cannot speak about the detail. That is not democracy. Democracy is about decisions and debates on issues affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should have made that point in the debates on what is now the Rates Act. He knows perfectly well that I am only operating the Rates Act, and I shall not depart from that.
The essence of the order is not about the principle of rate capping, which the hon. Gentleman is raising again. That is well established in statute and appears now to be accepted by the authorities concerned as a constraint within which they must work. The order is concerned with the practical application of rate capping in those authorities which have not accepted the limits that I proposed for them. They consider that they need to raise a higher amount from their ratepayers. In my judgment, they do not. I have not come to this view lightly. I have looked at a large amount of information and evidence and have taken account of what the council leaders have had to say. I accept that many of these authorities will not find it easy to take the measures necessary to live within their resources, but I am satisfied that their task is by no means impossible.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister must know, because of the representations that have been made to him by Lewisham, my local authority, that it is prepared to take some of the measures that the Minister has sought, such as the 12·3 per cent. cut in staff over all council departments, robbing us of much-needed services. Having done all that, we are then required to go further and to cut, for example, two occupied residential homes for the elderly and one home for adolescent children, to close two day centres for the elderly and five luncheon clubs, to reduce by one third the existing level of hospital social work, and so on. How can the Minister possibly justify that? It is not an economy. It is robbing desperate people of desperately needed services.

Mr. Ridley: That is the old trick that the hon. Lady is playing. One puts up front for cutting the things that one thinks will get the maximum public sympathy. For instance, I also read about the Lewisham council:
Cash for gays but NSPCC grant axed.
[Interruption.] I am only quoting from a newspaper.

Mr. Dobson: A Tory newspaper.

Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, the report was published in a local newspaper. It does not explain that the NSPCC had access to other funds, that the amount of money that was being cut was a very small amount and that the amount being given, as the Minister suggests, to gays is actually money being given to advice centres — counselling centres—particularly for young people who are facing difficulties in adjusting to their own sexuality. In the age of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, I would have thought that those counselling services were vital to an inner-city authority.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady is unwittingly giving me much evidence with which to rebut the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that it would be a very good idea if these matters


were debated at length in the House in relation to each borough. She has exposed the extreme range of complications, views and different spending projects of each council. I take into account all the factors, including full knowledge of the accounts of each council, and I listen to their pleas. I do not think that we are going to get any further by proceeding in the way that the hon. Lady is going.

Mr. Peter Shore: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but after that I must finish, because a lot of time is needed for others to take part in the debate.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. I want to put to him the very special problem in connection with Tower Hamlets council, of which I hope he will be fully aware and take note.
We are alleged to be overspending in Tower Hamlets by £21 million, but £18 million of that sum is spent on looking after over 1,000 homeless families. Does the Secretary of State expect the council, even if it can lawfully do so, to put those families in the street? What advice, apart from that, does he give to a council faced with a special and very urgent human problem of that kind?

Mr. Ridley: Both I and the Tower Hamlets council consider that the rate limits in the order are reasonable. It has informed me that it does not disagree with them. I admit that that was after the statutory period, but it has indeed done that. The right hon. Gentleman's point falls to the ground if his own council agrees with the rate proposal. It does not have to do so.

Mr. Shore: It agreed under great duress. I really have to say that to the right hon. Gentleman. The council tried to secure some serious aid. It received £2 million towards the £18 million from the Secretary of State. I know that it is assenting to his order, but only under great duress.

Mr. Ridley: That must be rubbish. There is no duress whatsoever. There cannot be duress. Eleven authorities have not voluntarily agreed, and that is why we are debating the order. Tower Hamlets is in the order only because it agreed after the order was put before the House. It did not have to do that. If it had felt that the rate limit was intolerable, it could have done as the other eleven authorities did and not agreed to it.
The limits in the order reflect the financial circumstances of the individual authorities. I have considered not only the appropriate expenditure level in each case, but each authority's present financial position and the grant that it is likely to receive next year, including the changes that flowed from last night's order. Leaving aside Tower Hamlets, which, as I have said, has accepted its limit, in each case the figure is the same as that which I proposed in December. In these cases I was not persuaded by the authorities' representations that the figures in question were not appropriate. In three cases—Camden, Southwark and Ealing—the figures in the order are higher than those proposed in December, but the authorities still have not agreed to accept them. They, too, have not persuaded me, however, that the new figures are inappropriate.
The overall effect of the order is to reduce the average local rates of the 12 authorities by about 9 per cent.

compared with the current year. At the individual authority level the range is from a reduction of 31 per cent. in Waltham Forest to an increase of 11·5 per cent. in Tower Hamlets. This range is due to the differences in the individual expenditure and financing circumstances of the various authorities. The overall effect on the amounts paid by ratepayers in these authorities is a reduction of £87 million compared with bills in the current year. Taken together with the rate limits that the other five rate-capped authorities have already accepted, the reduction in rates is equivalent to over £100 million less than in the current year. That £100 million will be to the benefit of local people and local businesses, as will the level of prosperity that will result.
For those reasons, I consider the rate limits specified in the order to be both appropriate to the circumstances of each authority and a good overall result for local ratepayers. The evidence available to me suggests that most of the authorities concerned are already taking a realistic approach to the implications of the limits. I urge these authorities to press on with their task. I ask the House to have due regard to the interests of local ratepayers in this the penultimate year of the present rating system.
I commend the order to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by unequivocally placing on record our absolute opposition to the Rates Act 1984 and its use in this way by Ministers to determine the budgets and the revenue income of local authorities. It is important to recognise that although the order covers 12 local authorities, five more authorities have accepted the Secretary of State's decision with great reluctance, and some 19 other local government bodies and joint boards have their budgets and their precepts controlled by the Secretary of State, as does the Inner London education authority. So some 40 local government bodies in England have their budgets and their rates or precepts determined by Ministers and civil servants, who are not well placed to make the best judgments about the local circumstances that prevail.
Let me say also that I do not think that the House of Commons is fit or equipped to be making decisions of this kind about local authority budgets and revenue.
In the case of the elected local authorities affected by the order, those budgets add up to £2·3 billion. The number of people living in the affected areas is over 4 million. Here we are, in a debate of three hours' duration, making decisions of this magnitude without any real grasp or understanding of all the implications involved. It is nonsense for a national legislature to make such decisions in such a way. Anyone who has given the matter any serious thought could not fail to agree.
What does the Secretary of State intend to do when the powers that he exercises under the Act that abolished the metropolitan authorities expire, as they will at the end of the coming financial year? He will then have to decide whether to use the powers under the Rates Act to take control of the budgets of the 18 joint boards, and we should like to know his thoughts on that. Presumably, he will have to make a decision in a relatively short time, and I hope that he will announce it here.
The Secretary of State had little to say about the benefits of what he is asking the House to approve. It is important to examine just what has happened to the


Government's claims since the Act was introduced. The Secretary of State said that the Act was working to control local government expenditure, but that is simply not true. In the case of those authorities, and of authorities more generally, expenditure has risen and will continue to rise. If that is a test of the workings of the Rates Act 1984, it is clearly a failure.
Let us look at another test of what has been happening under this Government and their legislation. In 1979–80, the average unrebated domestic rate bill in England was £155. By the current financial year, the figure had risen to £428. There is not much evidence of protecting the ratepayer in those figures. Over the Government's period in office, rates have risen on average by 13·6 per cent. every year. Some protection for the ratepayer there!
Although the Government have claimed to be on the side of the ratepayer, the majority of their actions and decisions on local government finance have been very damaging to the ratepayer's interests. The major and continuing reductions in rate support grant were just one — perhaps the most important — case in point, and I intend later to examine how those reductions have affected the financial circumstances of the authorites subject to the order.
All that makes nonsense of the claims by the Secretary of State — including his most recent claims for the coming financial year—that the Government have been acting to minimise rate increases. They have been doing exactly the opposite. Last year, average domestic rates in Britain rose by nearly 10 per cent. What the Government have been doing is transferring resources from non-rate-capped authorities to rate-capped authorities. That is the effect of the Act, and that is what we said would happen when it was under consideration as a Bill. It will continue to happen, and that is why the Government's claim that they are protecting ratepayers is false.
The effect of the Act is to increase the proportion of rate support grant — albeit a smaller amount of rate support grant—that goes to designated authorities, to the detriment of the non-designated authorities. All the claims, supported by Tory Members, that the Rates Act would benefit rural areas, cities and towns that were not designated are false, and are exposed by the workings of the Act.
The 11 most consistently rate-limited authorities have suffered a cumulative loss of nearly £2 billion—£1,980 million—during the time in which the Act has been in force. Some of the boroughs worst affected by the withdrawal of grant—a deliberate part of Government policy — are the very inner-city boroughs that the Government claim that they most want to help. The great initiative in the few days after the general election victory was the Prime Minister's announcement that they must do something about the inner-cities. Well, they are doing something about the inner cities all right: they are continuing to take more and more resources away from them. No adequate compensation or comparable support has been brought to the boroughs and inner-city areas that the Prime Minister so falsely claimed that she intended to help and support.
The introduction of rate capping in 1985 saw a net extra £118 million in rate support grant go to the 18 designated authorities. I have to say that the overwhelming proportion went to the then Greater London council. A net extra £79 million went to the nine newly rate-capped authorities, compared with the previous year when they

had not been rate-capped. However, that extra grant has been swamped by the eight succeessive years of systematic, deliberate and continuing withdrawal and reduction of rate support grant as a whole.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In percentage terms.

Dr. Cunningham: In percentage terms, and in real terms as well.
The Secretary of State said in December, when introducing the rate support grant order:
ratepayers in areas where local authorities choose to budget sensibly should on average receive rate bills which increase by around the rate of inflation."—[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 466.]
He had made the same claim in a statement about rate support grant on 30 November. Earlier still, in July of last year, he used almost identical words about the coming rate increases.
Let us see what is happening. In 1988–89, county precepts will be many times higher than the rate of inflation in many counties, including several under Conservative control. What the Association of County Councils had to say about the rate support grant decisions of the Government has been almost exactly borne out:
Present indications are that over £200 million of shire counties' block grant will be returned to the Treasury; this alone will cost the equivalent of a 5p rate and will necessitate precept increases which, on average, will exceed 10 per cent.
The Secretary of State denied that, but I have the published precept decisions of some 22 shire counties. The average increase for the coming year is 11·2 per cent., several times the rate of inflation and nowhere near the claims made for Government policy by the Secretary of State in his announcements.
Lower rates, if they exist in rate-capped authorities, are being financed by higher rates in the shire counties. The basis of rate capping is an above-average increase in expenditure targets for designated authorities, which brings budgeting targets closer together — thereby reducing penalties and earning the authorities more rate support grant than in the previous year.
But in the newly rate-controlled Ealing, for example, the rate support grant allocated to the borough will rise from £71 million in the current financial year to £84 million in 1988–89.

Mr. Ridley: What is wrong with that?

Dr. Cunningham: What is wrong with that is that it has been done at the expense of ratepayers in other areas. Therefore, the claim that the Act benefits ratepayers is bogus. I shall have a little more to say about Ealing in a moment, but let me examine further the Government's claims to protect ratepayers.
Authorities with budgets below £12·2 million can raise rates and expenditure with impunity because they are not covered by the Act, and many of them do. There is no protection for their ratepayers in the Act. This year the Secretary of State chose the criteria of a budget below £12·2 million and an increase of 12·5 per cent. or more in grant-related expenditure for existing rate-capped authorities. For newly selected authorities, he used those two criteria plus increased spending on 1986–87 of more than 6 per cent.
But for the fourth successive year, authorities were selected on the basis of spending above grant-related expenditure assessments. They were never intended to be


a normative spending target, but rather a means of distributing grant. That was made clear at the time that the Government constructed the system and that was the promise given to local authorities and Parliament at the time. It is simply not a suitable bench mark by which to make this kind of judgment.
London has perhaps been worst affected by the Government's policy under the Rates Act. London has been the focus for much of the attack on local authority services and jobs, as several of my hon. Friends have already pointed out. In each of the four years of ratecapping, over half the authorities selected have been London authorities. In 1985 it was 11 out of 18; in 1986, eight out of 12; in 1987, 12 out of 20 and in the coming financial year it will be 10 out of 17.
Seven London authorities — Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark—have been selected every year since the Act came into force. Again, I emphasise that those are some of the hardest hit authorities in the country, with some of the worst problems of homelessness, deprivation, bad housing and the like. Yet the Government go on and on imposing restrictions on those authorities' ability, freedom and flexibility to tackle those very problems.
It is hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to say that it is her Government's aim and objective to help inner-city boroughs to solve their problems when the Secretary of State for the Environment is introducing orders such as this. The rate limit set out in the order, and the expenditure levels on which they are based, imply serious shortfalls between the resources available to those councils and the money required to maintain local services.
In addition, many London councils also confront sharply rising levels of demand on those services. That is particularly the case with homelessness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has pointed out. London authorities face a crisis of homelessness. At the close of 1987, some 19,000 families were in temporary accommodation in the capital. That is costing the ratepayer a colossal amount of money, and it is money inefficiently spent. It would be cheaper and better value for the taxpayer and the ratepayer to build houses to house those families rather than to keep them in temporary accommodation.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Nobody will dispute the needs of many London boroughs and inner cities throughout Britain, but the theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech so far seems to give a clear message from the Opposition Benches that local authority spending should not be restrained or limited. Is it the Labour party's policy that, in the totality of national spending, the one area which is not the business of the House and should in no way be constrained is local authority spending? That seems to have been the message for the past 10 minutes.

Dr. Cunningham: Of course that is not the message. The hon. Gentleman is a regular attender of these debates and often contributes. He knows very well that that is not Labour party policy, because I have had the opportunity to tell him so on several occasions. But since his memory seems to be as defective as his political reasoning, let me put it on the record again.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Charming.

Dr. Cunningham: I took the trouble to re-read the previous two debates on this subject last year and the year before. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to do that, he would have known the answer that I am about to give. It is simply that the Labour party's policy makes it clear that what the Government provide to local authorities would, of necessity, be controlled and limited—

Mr. Simon Coombs: How?

Dr. Cunningham: Because the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to a decision. That is how, fathead.
The difference between us and the Government is simply that we do not believe that local government's revenue-raising powers should be subject to Government control. Whatever revenue-raising powers local government has, it should be free to determine how to use them.
What is happening here is, in a way, a fundamental negation of local elections. That is perhaps best illustrated by the case of the London borough of Ealing. The Conservatives were swept out of power in the local elections in Ealing in 1986 and Labour was elected with a good majority and given a vote of confidence in that borough. Labour decided to change the priorities for Ealing's budget — rightly so — on the basis of the manifesto on which it had campaigned. Therefore, it started spending more money.
But along came the Secretary of State and said that he would not allow that to happen. He would not allow the decision of the people of Ealing in the ballot box to take effect. He decided to rate-cap Ealing in an almost nonsensical way. However, I am pleased about one thing. He did respond to the representations from Ealing and the questions that I and other Opposition Members raised with him some time ago about the stupidity of his first announcement in respect of that borough. But even now, Ealing's expenditure limit in pounds per head is considerably less than all other rate-capped London boroughs. At £570 per head, it is £88 per head lower than the next lowest designated authority.
Ealing has housed 1,000 homeless families, appointed 140 new teachers and entered into deals with the private sector to build at least 600 new homes. But the Government want to negate all that and make a judgment about what should happen in Ealing, not on the basis of what the people of Ealing voted for, but on the basis of what the Secretary of State decides.

Mr. Holland: Does it not illustrate the economic illiteracy of Conservative Back Benchers that they assume that public spending drains the private sector? In housing, which my hon. Friend mentioned, public spending sustains the private sector. In Greater London, only 13 per cent. of council houses are built via the public sector through direct labour organisations and 87 per cent. are built by private contractors. The cuts in council house spending are one of the reasons why bankruptcies among private contractors in house building have doubled since the Government came to power.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman really agree with that?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend that local authority expenditure brings major benefits to the


economy and often to the private sector. If the Secretary of State thinks that there is something odd about that, he had better say so.

Mr. Ridley: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that rate limitation has an effect on the building of council houses. He would surely agree that that is not on the revenue but on the capital account. Perhaps he could educate his hon. Friend, who has made the mistake before.

Dr. Cunningham: I can agree with the Secretary of State on that point at least.
I return to what has happened in the London borough of Ealing. I see that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is in his place. The Government's solution in Ealing is simply to force the recently elected Labour administration effectively to continue the spending policies of the previous Conservative administration. That is the direct implication of the order. We might as well ask ourselves what is the purpose of having local elections in Ealing at all if the view of the electors is to be so obviously and nakedly negated.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the result of the general election?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman asks how I explain the result of the general election. If the Conservative party is concerned only with more and more central control, it had better be honest and stand up and say so, because that is the inevitable consequence of the Act and the order.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to be enlightened, he should look at clause 96 of the Local Government Finance Bill—the poll tax Bill—which is currently in Committee. He will see that even these powers are not sufficient for the Government. Under clause 96 of that Bill, the Government are to give themselves powers to limit and control the poll tax in every authority in the country. They are giving themselves powers retrospectively — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is interesting that Conservative Members should say "Hear, hear." Under the power, local electors can go to the polls and elect a council, but when the council introduces a budget, and fixes the poll tax at a level commensurate with that budget Ministers can come along and say retrospectively, "We shall not allow that to happen. We shall insist on changes in this budget retrospectively."
Quite apart from the fact that that is an absolute negation of the local democratic process, the provision simply does not make sound economic and managerial sense. It is a recipe for confusion and inefficiency.

Mr. Butterfill: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, as local government spending represents 25 per cent. of all public expenditure, any Government who are responsible overall to the electorate must reserve some power to control the overall level of expenditure?

Dr. Cunningham: As I have said many times, there are no sensible macro-economic arguments of which I am aware in favour of central Government controlling the totality of local government expenditure as this Government have sought to do but failed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The party's over.

Dr. Cunningham: I am getting rather tired of the hon. Gentleman waffling away from a sedentary position.
Every time he opens his mouth he displays his ignorance. To assist him, I shall send him a copy of the speech made by my late friend Anthony Crosland so that he can see—if he bothers to read it, which he clearly has not—that any resemblance between the contents of the Manchester town hall speech and what the Government propose is only a figment of his imagination.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman said that there were no macro-economic arguments for such control. I ask him to consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who was Secretary of State for the Environment not so many years ago. On precisely the same grounds, he wrote to all the local authorities requesting them to rein back their expenditure that year by £1,000 million because that was the wish of Parliament. In those happy days, local authorities said, "Parliament is supreme and we rein back our expenditure." They did that to meet the target of the right hon. Gentleman, who is here tonight.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in those days there was a consensus between local and central Government on these matters. There is no such consensus now; it has been broken by the Government. On coming to office in 1979, they decided to reduce the level of rate support grant which, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, was approaching 62 per cent. and has now been—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It was coming down.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman's memory is not just defective; it is very defective. When Labour was elected in the 1970s, the level of rate support grant was 62 per cent. and when we left office, it was 62 per cent. The hon. Gentleman cannot win with his canards. As a deliberate act of policy, the Government have now reduced rate support grant from 62 per cent. to 45 per cent.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It went up to 66 per cent.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course it did, but when the Labour Government left office, rate support grant was at the level that the Conservative Government had inherited. Now it is at 45 per cent. and the major consequence of that is that the boroughs and those elected in inner cities are facing considerable problems.

Mr. Bidwell: My hon. Friend has spent some time on the case of Ealing. Is not the Government's action pure political spite? There are special needs, particularly in my constituency, which is part of the London borough of Ealing, which the Secretary of State seems not to have taken into account at all.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have been vindictive and spiteful about local government and local democracy ever since they came to office. The Act is one of the worst manifestations of that, and the order seeks to put into practice decisions that we want none of. That is why we shall vote against it.

Sir George Young: I propose to speak on behalf of the London borough of Ealing—briefly, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. The order enables my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and me to honour the commitment that we gave our electors in Ealing last year.


We said that if we were re-elected the council would be rate-capped and the rates would go down: we were, it is and they will.
Almost a year ago, the Labour council in Ealing announced a rate increase of 65 per cent. which turned out to be the highest in the country. In an Adjournment debate last March, I asked the Government to rate-cap the authority at the earliest opportunity. The general election intervened before a decision could be made. Much as I would have been willing to fight that election on the achievements of the Administration, the issue on the doorstep in Ealing was the rate increase. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who is in his place, will agree that that was the dominant local issue in Ealing.
The only party that was prepared to offer protection against extravagant authorities such as Ealing was the Conservative party. Those who are interested in the minutiae of election results—I imagine that is everyone in the Chamber—will see that in Ealing there was an above-average swing to the Conservative party. Much as I would like to attribute that result to my charisma and my twice-weekly advice bureaux, and to the other excellent services offered by the Conservatives in Ealing, Acton, the reality is that the rates have much to do with the result.
The 65 per cent. increase bit very deep in Ealing. It hit people's incomes, pushed up prices in the shops and has depressed investment and employment. Many of the Budget reductions that were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last March were soaked up in Ealing by the higher rate increase. One small example of that impact is that about a year ago I launched an appeal to restore St. Mary's church. Many people, including industrialists, who responded said that they would have given more to the appeal if they had not had that rates demand over the same period.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir George Young: I shall give way when I have finished my point.
Indignation in Ealing is, if anything, higher than it was at the time of the last general election, for two reasons. First, nearly everyone has now paid his rates. A large number of carefully made budgets were wrecked by the increase.
Secondly, people cannot for the life of them find out what the bulk of that increase has secured. My constituents take the view that if the rates can go up without services being improved, rates can go down without them getting worse. Indeed, that is just what the order does, and it will be widely welcomed in Ealing by employers as much as by householders.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the homes that were being built by Ealing. Those homes, in Priory road in my constituency and in Drayton Bridge road in Ealing, North, were already being built by Laing and Barratt. They would have been bought by first-time buyers in the London borough of Ealing. However, through a deal which would now require the Secretary of State's consent, the London borough of Ealing bought them through a housing association. There are no more homes now than there would have been if the London borough of Ealing had not intervened. All that

has happened is that the tenure has changed from owner-occupation to renting. It has not generated more work or more homes.
The council is now engaged in the usual propaganda exercise of indentifying some visible cuts, mainly in Conservative wards, to embarrass the Government. For example, there are rumours that Pitshanger library is to be closed. That library was operated throughout the years of Conservative administration, when expenditure levels were far below that fixed in the order tonight. People are already asking why that library is under scrutiny when £12 million is being spent on the huge empire which embraces the equal opportunities unit, the police unit, the race unit, the women's unit and the economic development unit. Might not the economies sought by this order be secured there, rather than from libraries and luncheon clubs?

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being fair in his analyses. That is true until he starts talking about his own borough of Ealing, when he is grossly unfair — as, indeed, is his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The hon. Gentleman has just told the House something that is palpably untrue—that Ealing was spending £12 million on equal opportunities policies. I think that is what he said. My information is that all those policies amount to an expenditure of £1·5 million. When the hon. Gentleman comments on the amount by which the rates have increased, why does he not say something about the 1,000 homeless people who have been housed since 1986, or something about the 180 teachers who have been appointed? Can he not be fair about his own borough for once?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman mentioned homelessness. If he considers the figures, he will find that Ealing is now somewhere near the top of the league for accepting homeless families in London. When the Conservatives were in office there, it was somewhere near the bottom. Ealing has acquired the reputation of being a soft touch. People come to Ealing knowing that the criteria there are somewhat more generous than elsewhere. Therefore, that figure for homelessness is not a true reflection of need, but a reflection of the fact that the administration and the criteria have changed.
Perhaps I can give one example that Opposition Members will accept as fair. For entirely ideological reasons, the council changed its bank account from Barclays to National Giro, at a cost of £100,000 in extra charges. However, worse was to follow. National Giro is not a clearing bank, so when Ealing ratepayers recently paid their rates through their own banks, the full details on the paying-in slips were not passed on to Giro. Ealing now has about £20 million in its Giro account, without knowing who that money belongs to. As a result, many people were summonsed for non-payment of rates when, in fact, they had paid them. The result is a cost of about £250,000 in staff time to put the matter right. I understand that the council is now to switch its account from Giro to the NatWest.
Money is also being spent on propaganda. I have sent my hon. Friend a copy of a leaflet describing in wholly inaccurate terms the Government's Housing Bill. Whether this is in breach of the new code remains to be seen, but the costs of the publicity unit have risen enormously and,


to my mind, much of it seems to be campaigning against the Government. I believe that some economies could be secured there.
I want to put one point to my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate. I believe that it is still possible for councils to indulge in creative accounting to get round the restrictions in the order. In Ealing, capital funds are being used for revenue purposes and I suspect that other ingenious devices are about to be launched. I urge my hon. Friend to have yet another look at the opportunities for evasion.
Apparently there is now a lot of support for the London borough of Ealing from Opposition Members. However, although the leader of the Labour party lives in the London borough of Ealing, there was no trace during the last general election of him lifting one finger to support any of the local candidates in the two marginal seats in that borough. Indeed, judging by what his press secretary said last year, the London borough of Ealing and other London boroughs are widely believed to be an embarrassment to Opposition Members.
The order is good news for Ealing. It shows my constituents that Parliament is there to protect them from local excess and that the Conservative party is in tune with what the voters in Ealing want.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm the report in the Municipal Journal that the cost to the ratepayers of taking street cleaning away from private contractors and giving it to a local authority work force is an increase from £900,000 to £1·7 million?

Sir George Young: I understand that those figures are accurate. Street cleaning was deprivatised, but again there is no visible improvement in the service.

Mr. Bidwell: Yes, there is.

Sir George Young: Well, I live in the borough and the hon. Gentleman does not. I can look out of my window to see whether the streets are now cleaner.
Ealing council is living on borrowed time and on borrowed money. This order is the first nail in its coffin. I hope that the House will drive it home.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has just made some points about the borough of Ealing, some of which were hotly contested, which just goes to show that what the Secretary of State said earlier about the way in which we debate these orders simply is not true. He said that we would not be debating the detail of individual local authorities. However, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, there are specific local circumstances in Ealing that need to be looked at, some of which are disputed, but the House is given just three hours in which to decide on 17 local authorities which are to be rate-capped.
Although we will not agree—even on the Opposition side—about the nature of some of the local policies, the problem is that there is no legitimate way in which hon. Members can put forward the case of their local authority except in a series of hurried speeches, which some will contest and some will accept.
The Secretary of State reminded us that 1988 marked the fourth year of rate capping under the Rates Act 1984. The last debate on this matter took place on 25 February 1986. No such debate occurred last year because of the

fiasco surrounding the Government's discovery late in 1986 that for several years they had been operating the entire rate support grant system in a way that was illegal. Following that discovery, they introduced into Parliament what became the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which enabled the Government retrospectively to make legal the previous year's rate support grant settlement and the rate-capping arrangements and to make it possible for there to be a legal settlement in 1987–88.
My purpose in tracing the origins of the order, which rate-caps 17 authorities, including my own local authority in Liverpool, is to remind hon. Members of the turmoil and uncertainty that has engulfed local government for a sustained period.
During the eight years in which I served as a member of the local authority in Liverpool, I chaired some of its committees and, as deputy leader, was involved in budget-making. It was always an agonising business for me and for other council members from all political parties—to temper financial prudence with a proper desire to enhance local amenities, facilities and services. In those days, the rate-cappers were the ratepayers, who ultimately held the sanction of turfing out an administration if they disapproved of the way in which it was governing their affairs.
That relationship has been entirely changed. Rate capping by central Government has driven out of local government people who in the 1970s and earlier would have had a great deal of satisfaction from working in local government and putting before local ratepayers priorities that they believed to be right. These days, many men and women see little point in merely acting as the Government's bookkeepers and have left local government. I passionately believe that the strength of democracy lies in the foundations of its local government and I mourn the passing of a strong and stable local government.
The Government's approach has been to bid the gelding run faster and then to hobble it. Local government all over Britain has been put into leg irons. The Government's task has been made easier by a handful of local councils, dominated by the militant Labour Left, whose antics have simply played into the Government's hands. Time and again, the Government have been able to use the excesses of a few to harness public opinion and push through punitive legislation. Many ordinary councils and ratepayers have been involuntarily caught in the crossfire and through the actions of extremists many Labour, Liberal and even Conservative councillors have faced disqualification and surcharge.
When he was the Member of Parliament for Hexham, Sir Geoffrey Rippon said of rate capping:
It is deplorable. It raises major constitutional issues. It is a classic example of elected dictatorship.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said:
I do not believe these powers should be given to Ministers.
The Conservative-controlled ADC also opposed its introduction.
It is my simple contention that a community that is not allowed to make its own decisions on how much to spend on schools, clinics, libraries, old people's homes, roads, homes, or street sweeping will simply decay.
Rate capping neuters local government and annually it throws it into confusion. It has a second insiduous effect. Rate capping hits the most disadvantaged local authorities


the hardest. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) reminded us, in the aftermath of the 1987 election, the Prime Minister said that she was going to
do something about those inner cities.
Now we know exactly what she had in mind.
The order runs contrary to that claim. Almost all the rate-capped authorities this year, as in previous years, have to deal with some of the worst urban deprivation—areas where homelessness, poor housing, unemployment, crime and alienation are at their worst. Those councils are now to be used as a punchbag.
The consequences for the rate-capped authorities will be severe. On 8 January The Independent stated:
Councils in London are drawing up plans to cut at least 5,500 jobs because of rate-capping. Final decisions on the cuts will be made at budget meetings over the next two months, but at least four Labour-controlled councils have already decided on the number of jobs to cut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who is on the Housing Bill Committee this evening—he was in the Chamber earlier and is hoping to return—told me in a note:
The effect of this in the coming year will be a reduction in real terms of between 5 and 10 per cent., a cut in our spending of between 5 and 10 per cent.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: In a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey went on:
It looks as if the most severe cuts will fall on housing and social services, and in particular on the most vulnerable closures of day centres, nurseries, old people's provisions, libraries, swimming pools and the like.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) as I agree with him, but he has been misled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Housing Bill Committee finished at 8 o'clock. I am the Labour Whip on the Committee, so I can say that with some certainty. That is why I am here. A number of Conservative Members who were on the Housing Bill Committee are present. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is not in the Housing Bill Committee.

Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend has been at that Committee and he was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was not present. He intervened in the Secretary of State's speech. Similarly unfair criticism was made about the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) earlier when he was in the Education Reform Bill Committee.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will also recognise that only one person ever gets called from this Bench in a debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will be happy for me to have made his point, and I hope the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will let me proceed as we agree on a number of points.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about rate capping. Perhaps he will explain why Liverpool city council has the largest number of empty council properties anywhere in Britain—10·8 per cent. or 6,955—whereas Knowsley has only 499 empty properties or 1·9 per cent. There are five

times as many empty properties in Liverpool owned by the council as there are in any other Merseyside borough. That is one reason why the Government has had to rate-cap Liverpool.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position in Liverpool. The problem exists because we have lost one third of our population during the past 20 years. As there has been this massive exodus from the city, property has been left empty. Many of those properties are uninhabitable and have had to be closed; others form part of the demolition programme.
Part of the problem also stems from the overheated economy in the south. As people move south, the homeless problem in the south-east increases. As we have become a nation of Dick Whittingtons and as people leave cities such as Liverpool, problems have been created in some of the London boroughs as people coming from the north seek accommodation here. Secondly, this causes empty housing in places like the north-west of England.

Mr. Heffer: I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will agree with me, in relation to empty property, that one of the great problems in Liverpool is that a number of years ago properties were built on a fairly large scale, but the people who built them ought to be put in prison because of the state of those properties. They have had to be emptied out, and they include empty properties that are uninhabitable. That is not the responsibility of the present local authorities and to a large extent was caused by previous Government policy.

Mr. Alton: The sins of our fathers are often visited on their sons. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1972 thousands of properties were constructed on the Netherley estate. That was a great mistake by Liverpool council. I made my maiden speech on Liverpool city council in opposition to that scheme. Regardless of who now administers the city, the debt charges that still stem from the construction of those properties remain to haunt the local authority. The repayments will go on for a further 40 years. The debts on properties now demolished will go on being a major millstone around the neck of Liverpool city council. Those special circumstances are never taken into account when the rate support grant settlement is made.
This year, the gap between what is prescribed by the order and what will be allowed to be spent in Liverpool amounts to some £45 million.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: Not at the moment. That is the difference between the anticipated expenditure and that allowed by the Government. The consequences for Liverpool city council will be catastrophic. If the money were to be saved entirely by shedding labour, it would require 5,625 employees to be sacked, according to the chief executive of Liverpool city council. But if redundancies are to be the key to meeting the targets set by the Government, in a city where unemployment stands at 20 per cent., is that, to use the Prime Minister's words,
doing something to help those cities"?
That seems a strange way of helping them. Surely what is needed is a true partnership, where local and central Government tackle the problems together.
Liverpool council refused to apply for a redetermination — in my view, wrongly. But I understand its


reasons. It was given no assurance that its permitted expenditure would not be reviewed downwards. If the Government could at least have promised not to make matters even worse, it would have been a catalyst to bring Liverpool's politicians around the table.
One does not have to be clairvoyant to see what failure to obtain agreement will lead to. The city will shortly be plunged into a debilitating fiscal crisis and the casualties will be the ratepayers, with yet more damage inflicted on the city's battered image. Today's Financial Times bleakly states:
The warning, in a letter that will be made public tomorrow, will say that setting a spending limit and trying to run services within it in an attempt to avoid cuts in jobs and services will not be an acceptable alternative to setting a proper budget. Failure to do so might lead to further surcharges and disqualifications of councillors.
Some of the wounds suffered by Liverpool are self-inflicted. One example is the decision to spend £250,000 on the trade union resource centre. That decision alone will attract £200,000 in penalties this year. I was also opposed to the decision to borrow £60 million from Swiss and Japanese bankers—that borrowing will incur additional loan repayments of £92 million. I believe that that is reckless and irresponsible. However, I would fight against such decisions locally, through local elections, not through rate capping. Although we may disagree with some of the council's policies—and it should be said that some of those policies date back to the council's predecessor—such matters should be determined locally rather than nationally.
I hope that the Government will reconsider enhancing the urban progremme. If some of the city's housing was transferred to housing associations or co-operatives, that would also help. However, it would still not be enough. If the Government vindictively leave Liverpool to stew in its own juice they will create the conditions for Militant and its friends to prosper. As Peter Taafe said last weekend:
There are more Militants on the council now than there even were before.
Government inertia will simply create a breeding ground for extremism and militancy to prosper.
Rate capping does not create better local government—it leads to confrontation and centralisation. It does creates the climate not for good management but for chaos, and it drives decent people out of local councils. In July, the Secretary of State said that, because of the pending abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the poll tax, this would be
the penultimate rate support grant settlement".
In October, at the Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State said:
The choice before us is a stark one. We must either have more and more central control or local electors must exert real local control. We vote for local control.
By the autumn, the truth was out. The Minister for Local Government admitted that the Government were to extend rate capping to cover the poll tax. Therefore, we are not discussing the penultimate capping of local councils, as he said. So much also for the power of the ballot box, a simplified system and less central interference. Capping rates has led to this present vale of tears. For the future, capping the community charge will simply be an act of selective vengeance against councils that the Government do not like. For those reasons, Liberals will vote against the order.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Before the general election, I recall that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who then sat on the Opposition Front Bench for matters concerning the environment, telling me that as a result of my intention to vote in favour of rate capping, I would be unseated at the general election. That hon. Gentleman has moved on to other responsibilities, but I am happy to tell his successor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that my majority increased by 350 per cent. at the election. Therefore, I believe that we should beware of name calling, in which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) indulged. It is not possible to solve the intractable problems of local government in that way.
The problem is that the consensus between national and local government has broken down. However, that problems lies not with the Government, but with the councils with which we have attempted to maintain that original consensus.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman would say that, wouldn't he?

Mr. Coombs: The hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary, if not lying, position that I would say that, and he is right. Let me give the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends the facts, which I believe justify my case.
In 1976, a Labour Secretary of State asked local authorities to rein in their expenditure by £1,000 million. At that time, a large proportion of local government was in the hands of the Conservative party. The response of those Conservative-controlled councils in that national crisis — a crisis brought about by the Labour Government of the day—was that it was right that they should react in a public-spirited and responsible manner. As a result, the Labour party was able to rein in local government expenditure.
When the present Government came to power in 1979, they found that the problems had continued to mount on the hapless head of the previous Labour Government and that the economy was overstretched and in considerable difficulties. There was also an international crisis in the oil market. Yet again there was a need to restrain public expenditure. What happened? There was no response from the councils which, after 1979, were under Labour party control. The only response was to continue to increase dramatically at the cost of local ratepayers.
When we discuss the breakdown of consensus, we must remember that it is due to the fact that in the past eight years Labour councils have consistently refused any request to act responsibly in the national interest. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Copeland to say, in answer to my question, that it is for the Treasury to sort things out.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1982, the London borough of Camden has increased its staff by 2,000? I also believe that since 1985 the London borough of Hackney has increased its staff by 1,150.

Mr. Coombs: Those are two examples of the way in which expenditure has been heaped upon the ratepayers and the citizens of some councils in the country. It is not my intention to make detailed attacks on the Labour party. I wish to make my case on a national basis.
In a sedentary intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Copeland how the Labour party would respond to the


fact that, in the macro-economic sense, it cannot allow 25 per cent. of national public expenditure to go on increasing every year because local Labour councils are unable to deal with their problems in a cost-effective manner. If the Labour party ever came to power again, it would have to tackle that problem. I invited the hon. Member for Copeland—he is not in the Chamber—to tell me how the Labour party would do that, but rather than answer he called me a rude word.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who has a reputation for independence of thought, will not feel it necessary to follow the official Labour line of calling people rude names if they do not understand the question or if there is no answer. When the hon. Gentleman replies, perhaps he might be persuaded to tell us how the Labour party would tackle the problem of rapidly expanding local government expenditure. The Opposition, if in power, would have to face such a problem.
Rate capping is not unpopular among the people. If it were, at least a dozen Conservative Members would not be representing seats with Labour-controlled local councils. If voters were unhappy with rate capping, undoubtedly they would have turned out Conservatives representing parts of the affected boroughs. On the contrary, in one such area, Waltham Forest, the Conservative party made a gain rather than a loss. We must accept that rate capping is not an unpopular policy for those who suffer the high rates of local Labour councils. On the contrary, those high rates are unpopular; that is why my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) were returned with such thumping good majorities at the election in 1987.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when rate support grant—central Government support for local authority services—has been cut from 61 to 46 per cent., there is bound to be pressure upwards on the rates? The Financial Times said that the reason for rate increases was the cut in rate support grant. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman not accept that, and accept also that the problems of the inner-city boroughs are nothing like the problems of the shire counties? If the Labour party were in government and needed to control the overall sum, it would at least ensure that the resources went into the inner-city areas, where they are most needed.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a convert to the Financial Times. I feel sure that as the years go by, a greater sense of financial reality will break in on him.
I shall deal now with the reduction in rate support grant. The Labour party comes to the House tonight, as always, in the guise of defending local democracy. What could be more appropriate to local democracy than that an ever greater share of expenditure on local services should come from local people? That is what the switch of rate support grant is designed to do.
When we discuss democracy in the House, we should reflect on the fact that Labour councillors are elected by 25 or 30 per cent. of the electors in their wards. Conservative Members of Parliament, representing those same areas, are returned by turnouts of 75 per cent. Which

of those two groups is the more democratically entitled to speak on behalf of the ordinary people of those areas? I would say that Conservative Members are.

Mr. Bernie Grant: The hon. Gentleman says that only about 25 per cent. of people elect Labour councillors. What is the average figure for the election of Tory councillors in Tory boroughs and local authorities?

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I belatedly congratulate him on surviving a 6·8 per cent. swing to the Conservatives in his seat at the general election last year. We are glad to have him with us. The point I made was that Labour councillors are the beneficiaries of those areas because they control the authorities. Of course, the point applies equally to councillors in general. Conservative Members of Parliament have a greater right to speak on behalf of all the people in the areas they represent because they have been elected by a majority of the people—75 per cent. of them.
I want to say a word about the borough of Thamesdown, which is on the list, in the company of authorities in inner London, which, as I recognise, have real social problems that are not to be compared with the problems which, happily, the people of Thamesdown face — although in Swindon many people have severe difficulties. There is no reason why Thamesdown should continue to figure in the list, apart from its own reluctance, its refusal, to come to the Secretary of State to discuss the problems. I understand that all that has happened this year is that a letter of protest was sent. There was no attempt to discuss the problems that face the borough or to persuade the Secretary of State that more money would be appropriate.
Other authorities have gone to my right hon. Friend and been given extra cash to deal with the problems. Some have been allowed to increase their rate precept by more than the rate of inflation. Not Thamesdown. Its attitude is simple. Before the general election its ex-deputy leader said that it was a Labour Government or bust. We told him then that he had to face the responsibilities of his own actions, because there was no way that he would have a Labour Government to bail him out.
These problems remain. I am happy to support the order, but unhappy that it affects the people that I represent here. I hope that, as the years go by, the people of Thamesdown will be represented by a council which will be prepared to discuss these matters rationally and which, in due course, will be Conservative-controlled, removing our name for all time from the list of those whose expenditure has to be controlled by the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Time is getting very short, and many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal for short contributions.

Mr. Peter Shore: I shall oppose the order on behalf of Tower Hamlets. I repeat the point that I made to the Secretary of State, that the alleged agreement between him and the borough of Tower Hamlets was made under duress. If Tower Hamlets had not consented to it, he would have had the option of reducing still further the grant given to the borough. If that is not duress, I do not know what is.
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, and I want to put to him some of the difficulties we face. I want to urge him to think again, or at least to explain why he has taken this decision, which has such adverse consequences for my borough.
Like the other inner-London boroughs affected by the order — and like Liverpool and Newcastle — Tower Hamlets was part of the original partnership of boroughs that we set up deliberately in 1977, because we recognised that they were areas of exceptional need, requiring exceptional help. That was the spirit and the intention of our inner-city policy. Those same boroughs have sustained successive attacks on their finances by reductions in the rate support grant from 61 per cent. to 46 per cent. Fines have been imposed on them for alleged overspending, and they are faced now with the effects of rate capping.
When rate capping of Tower Hamlets was announced last autumn, the council decided to apply for a redetermination. Its alleged overspend of 22 per cent. above GRE amounted to £23 million. As a result of the Department of the Environment rethink, an additional £2 million for expenditure was allowed. Still, that means that the borough must retrench by £21 million next year—20 per cent. of its total expenditure.
When the council went to see the Minister of State for Local Government, the case that it argued was based almost completely on the exceptional problem of homelessness and the high cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for our homeless people. No less than £18 million of the council's alleged overspend last year and this year will have been incurred in securing temporary accommodation for the 980 homeless families in 1986–87 and the 1,150 homeless families in 1987–88.
No other borough, with the possible exception of Camden, has had to face a bill for accommodating the homeless of anything like the scale that we face. The reasons are plain: we have a large Bengali community. Being the last major ethnic group to settle in the United Kingdom, the flow of relatives to join husbands and fathers here in Britain is inevitably high. Moreover, Bengali settlement is highly concentrated in a few locations in the United Kingdom, the largest of which is in Tower Hamlets. The council, people and Members of Parliament of Tower Hamlets have long argued that additional special housing money was essential to meet the special problem of homelessness in Tower Hamlets.
When the council met the Minister, he merely listened. The Secretary of State did not turn his mind to the problem or attempt to give the reasons for his decision. I want to know whether the Government recognise the exceptional problem of homelessness in Tower Hamlets, and if not, why not? Is it the Government's case that the council is spending money extravagantly on other services? If so, which are they, and by how much should they be cut?

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Shore: I am asking the Secretary of State, not the hon. Gentleman.
Is it the Government's case that the problem of homelessness could be solved by making better use of the voids in the council housing stock? Certainly there are far too many voids, but the Government must be aware of the fact that there is a major mismatch between the large size of homeless families who need to be accommodated and the small size vacant accommodation, which consists mainly of one and two-bedroomd flats.
On top of that major housing crisis, the Government's rate capping of Tower Hamlets will produce a further crisis in the provision of other services throughout the borough. The number of homeless families cannot be easily or quickly reduced, in spite of the restrictive and harsh provisions of the Immigration Bill.
What have the Government to say? Are they blind or are they indifferent to the special problems of Tower Hamlets? Have they nothing to offer except a relentless squeeze on its expenditure and its power to raise revenue from rates? The order — not the Prime Minister's rhetoric about regeneration—reveals the true and ugly face of Government policy for the inner cities.

Mr. David Amess: I welcome the order to cap rates in Basildon, as do many of my constituents. I say that in the light of the fact that the previous Labour council got us into debt to the tune of £34 million, which is a disgrace. Net expenditure will exceed income by £14·6 million by March 1990.
The House may wish to know that in 1983 Basildon was ranked 112th in the list of Labour seats that could be won by the Conservative party. In the general election last year, Basildon was ranked as the 14th most marginal seat. A number of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen visited my constituency, including the campaign manager for the Leader of the Opposition, who was frequently seen on television forecasting a Labour gain. Hon. Members will be aware that the Basildon count was shown on television; the seat was retained by the Conservative party, and we doubled our majority.
I am proud to represent the largest new town in the country. It is now the finest new town in the country. It is a supreme example of the success of the Government's policies. We have the largest covered shopping centre in Europe. When I became the Member of Parliament for Basildon, there were about 9,000 unemployed people. The caring Labour council, in typical fashion, put a board outside the council offices to display the number of people who were out of work. I am proud that in the past five years unemployment in Basildon has been cut by 50 per cent. During that time, the display board disappeared. When I inquired why that was so, I was told that one of the screws had gone rusty and the board had fallen clown. I do not think that we are so naive as to believe that. It was all very well when the arrow was going up, but when it went down the council did not like it.
In the last Parliament, I talked about rates in Basildon on a number of occasions. There is no doubt that the rate burden in Basildon has been intolerable. I made my maiden speech on the Rates Bill. I served on the Committee with a number of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber and I well remember difficulties that the noble Lord Jenkin of Roding encountered with the Opposition about rate capping. I feel that my constituents have benefited from rate capping.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the statement that he made at the beginning of his speech, when he spoke in such glowing terms of the progress in his constituency, is consistent with what he is claiming to be a problem with rates? Is it not a fact that the growth that he mentioned has been helped by the local authority and that it has played a major part in the progress of that town?

Mr. Amess: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) should be careful when intervening on another hon. Member's constituency matters. He probably does not know where Basildon is. Basildon's success has nothing to do with the work of the local authority but everything to do with the Basildon development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns. Those are the organisations that should be praised, not the irresponsible spenders on the former Labour council.
In my maiden speech, I suggested that we should abolish rates and introduce a community charge. I welcome the Local Government Finance Bill, and when it becomes law many of my constituents will benefit from it.
Over the past years, I have had occasion to refer a number of items of extravagance to the district auditor. Unfortunately, he has found it difficult to act on those matters as his powers seem rather toothless.
We have had to cope with a barrage of propaganda. We have a district council which employs 12 people in its public relations department. I am sure that the House will be interested to listen to the detail of a press release that it put out in early 1986:
Basildon ready to win through with Labour's national commitments. 'Basildon is ready and able to take full advantage of any multi-million investment programme by the next Labour Government to create jobs,' says the Labour council leader. He pointed to Basildon's recently announced multi-million pound capital development programme, aimed at taking the District bustling into the 1990s, as evidence that the Caring Council and Community are 'winning through', and as an indication of how local planning is tying in with Labour's national approach and commitments.
The council leader continued:
As a District Council we are fully prepared for the next Labour Government to implement a multi-million programme of capital investment.
Our recently announced programme will see Basildon into the 1990's, and we will be ready with details of other development and job creation projects.
Despite all the obstacles this present Tory Government attempts to place in our way and all the pressures it tries to bring on our community we are winning through.
We are laying the plans locally which tie in with the national plans and commitments of Labour's incoming Government team. The choice will be for the people of Basildon and similar hard pressed communities up and down the nation.
He got his answer on 11 June when I was re-elected and doubled my majority.
The truth of that press release is revealed by what I said earlier in my speech—Basildon is £34 million in debt because of the irresponsibility of that administration.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that press release was prepared at the expense of the ratepayers?

Mr. Amess: Of course it was. In Basildon, everything is done at the ratepayers' expense.
Just before the general election, the Under-Secretary of State replied to an Adjournment debate in which I showed him a glossy leaflet. That leaflet supplied information to the ratepayers, but it might just as well have said, "Vote Labour." That is the sort of thing with which we have had to contend in Basildon over the past few years. Basildon district council has often provided services and interfered in matters for which it is not responsible. For example, it has confused people about the sort of welfare benefits to which they are entitled.
The House will want to know what sort of council we have in Basildon. I refer to a press release headed:

Militant threat to Labour rule",
which states:
Councillor David Harrison resigned as the Labour whip on Basildon council after being suspended for failing to support a £700 grant to community associations. His defection, together with
Councillor Peter Maloney, a lifelong member of the Labour party, means that the Labour party lost control of Basildon district council.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is supposed to be a debate about rate capping and rate limitation. The speech of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is just a series of scandalous stories.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was also becoming slightly worried about the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that he will address his remarks to the order.

Mr. Amess: I shall certainly do that. I understand the embarrassment of Labour Members. The councillor about whom I am speaking in connection with this rate-capped authority, said that he would now vote in line with his conscience. He remains chairman of Basildon district council.
In the previous Parliament, I was the only Conservative Member not to have a Conservative district or county councillor in my constituency. They were all Labour. I am delighted to tell the House that, in September 1987, the first Conservative councillor was elected in my constituency since 1979. He took the seat from Labour when the alliance was expected to win, so we came from third to first position. The councillor now fully supports the rate-capping measure.
I wish to give the House some brief examples of items of expenditure which have led to rate capping in Basildon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, creative accounting is rife in Basildon. On 11 April, the largest and most expensive theatre in the country will be opened in Basildon. That theatre cost £8 million, but none of that money was paid in interest over the past three years. We are now forced to pick up the bill. The Socialists responsible for that gross extravagance have run away from their responsibility.
The Socialists have also committed us to building a town hall which will cost £17 million. They have decided to replace the Laidon community centre, at a cost of £1·7 million. They have set up an area management style of services which is extremely expensive. It is a clever Socialist way of taking the power away from the elected council and giving it to a few people who turn up at the meetings and push forward Socialist propaganda.
A sports hall will be built at Markham Chase for £2 million. Before that sports centre was built, the local people were consulted and given two options. They plumped overwhelmingly for one option and the local authority chose the other option. That is a wonderful example of Socialist democracy. They then opened another sports centre in Pitsea in my constituency, at a cost of £1·2 million. They have also built community workshops.
The latest Socialist idea is to organise the countryside. They decided to organise Wat Tyler park. They put in a floating ramp, which cracked. Then a slipway was installed for people outside the area to use, and the Socialists calmly wrote off £20,000. A boat compound was moved on a number of occasions. That cost £25,000. In 1974, the


Socialists dredged a creek, which cost £10,000. In 1985, at a cost of £6,000, they built a beach, but they built it on mud and it has since vanished. They built a jetty for a crane, but we do not even have a crane to put there. If we want one, it will cost us £30,000.
The Socialists built a nature pond and filled it in after four months because it leaked. That cost us £2,500. A private caterer was catering for the good people who work at Wat Tyler park, but, because of the Socialist belief that profit is a dirty word, he was driven off. The job was given to someone in the council and the business now makes a dirty great loss.
We had, as ever, a peace festival which, of course, was not supported by people from Basildon but by people from all sorts of areas. The ratepayers of Basildon had to pay for all the rubbish to be collected. We have the usual nonsense of nuclear-free zones and a number of ideas for theme parks to be built in the area.
If Labour had won the election, the reality for people in Basildon, with no other commitments than those I have announced to the House, would have been a doubling of the rates in Basildon. That is the irresponsibility of Socialism in Basildon.
I am delighted that we now have a hung council. A hung anything is not ideal, but at least it is a little better than the previous Socialist administration. In the hung council, the Conservative group put forward suggestions for savings of £7·5 million and the Liberals — who always find themselves in difficulty when they are given power and have to make decisions—did not quite have the guts to go all the way with us and suggested savings of £4·5 million.
My constituents and I welcome the order to cap rates in Basildon. We eagerly look forward to the benefit that a community charge will bring to all the people of Basildon.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have heard some remarkable arguments from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) suggested that Members of Parliament have the right to represent people only if they have an overwhelming majority on a particular council. I have to tell the hon. Member that Labour has an enormous majority on my council, but at one stage it was Conservative-controlled and every councillor was Conservative. I do not quite know the logic of his argument and I do not think it has a great deal to do with rate capping, so I will not waste time pursuing it. The hon. Member for Basildon has wasted an awful lot of time.
I wish to make two quick points, because other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made a good case for our position in Liverpool, but I disagree with him on two points. He talked about militants and the loony Left running local authorities, which was totally irrelevant. Let us talk about the real position.
My area has problems of unemployment, housing and drugs — you name it, we have it. The problems have arisen not because of the dreadful activities of the local council, however the council has been made up, but because over the years the port of Liverpool, because of the change in world trade and our entry into the Common Market — [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen for once instead of smirking. If they came from areas such

as mine, they would understand that the local economy has changed so that we are left, as it were, stranded on the shore. If we still had the same economy and trading patterns, we would not be in the position we are in today. Areas such as mine need assistance from Governments, not rate capping.
The previous council went to the Government and asked whether it could have back some of the money which had been taken away in the rate support grants. It had lost about £350 million. I think that over those years the total grant was about £500 million. The council asked the Government for £30 million as a loan, but it did not get it; it had to go to international bankers. I deplore that, as does everyone else. That happened because the Government refused to assist a council with housing problems which hon. Members from nice new towns do not begin to understand; they live in an entirely different world and in a different atmosphere from the people in my part of the world.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said that the council is faced with cutting jobs and services. It will have to impose a rent increase of £4 a week, which will raise only £11·6 million. Rents of council property in Liverpool are 16th highest of the 36 metropolitan districts. Rents are already too high in an area where the people cannot afford them because there is so much unemployment.
Enough has been said. We must impress upon the Government that they have a duty to people in all parts or the country. Because the people elect Labour or Liberal authorities, or in Ulster other authorities, that does not mean that the Government can run away from the their responsibilities and say, "We will only help Conservative authorities because they represent the people who support us." If the Government continue along that path, sooner or later the anger which is growing in inner cities like Liverpool will again bubble over. That is the last thing I want to see.
Therefore, I ask the Government to think again. Certainly I shall vote against the order. I hope that Conservative Members who have still got a little conscience will at least abstain, even if they will not vote against the order, and let the Government know that they are not satisfied with the present policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) set a commendable example in making a brief speech. Many hon. Members are affected directly by the order. I should be grateful if we could have brief speeches so that most of them may be called.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Until May last year I was privileged to have been associated with local authorities for the previous 20 years. Therefore, I was sad when it became necessary for the Government to bring in rate limitation, but it was and still is necessary. I do not object to the reserve powers contained in the new legislation which will reform the domestic rating system.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke of the old consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) explained why the consensus had broken down. Clearly, it broke down because many local authorities forgot that they were local


authorities and slipped into the jargon of referring to themselves as local governments, or even governments in exile, ignoring the fact that this is the place where laws are made and which answers to the wider public.
Time and time again, in this debate and in others, Opposition Members have referred only to the rate support grant when commenting on the needs of inner cities, some rate-capped and some not rate-capped under the order. Some might wish that they were being rate-capped in view of the forecasts for rate precepts in the list referred to by the hon. Member for Copeland.
The area of central Government support that seems to be ignored, as it was by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), is that of specific grants. To give the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) his due, he mentioned programme partnership authorities. For many years these authorities have received specific grants in addition to their rate support grant. Many cities in the midlands, if they put the two grants together, find that the percentage of rate support, in its widest sense, is as high now as it has ever been, but, because part of it is specific, it is much better targeted and in many ways the money is being better spent because of that.
There seems to be a view that, somehow, local government spending ought not to be constrained. Again, from the Opposition Front Bench, that policy has been confirmed. As we have heard, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, recognised the national need when he asked local authorities to rein back £1 billion spending. People should also remember that local government expenditure has to be seen in the totality of national needs. At the time that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney reined back local government spending, hon. Members will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in those dreadful years, had to make cuts in our National Health Service.
The NHS is very dear to all our hearts. When we look, even now, at the overspending of local authorities, with an estimate of £1·6 billion overspending, it seems foolish for the House to ignore the sort of runaway expenditure that could happen. Even with strict controls, overspending is £1·6 billion.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: They are underfunded.

Mr. Brando-Bravo: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), from a sedentary position, talks about underfunding. If the Government of the day spend £1·6 billion more on supporting local authorities, they have to choose whether they want to do that or to spend it on the Health Service. The money cannot be spent twice. It is totally unacceptable for hon. Gentlemen to imagine that they can talk about any one Department's expenditure as if that had no impact on any other.

Mr. Holland: Instead of the hon. Member simply reasoning that if one spends money in one way it cannot be spent in another, may I ask whether he is aware that the figure of £1·6 billion is less than 0·5 per cent. of GNP? If the Government could maintain the rate of growth of the economy rather than have it halved next year, they could spend that on local authorities and also generate resources for the private sector.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member likes to choose a yardstick that suits his case, but I must remind the House that each of the various items of additional expenditure that the Opposition promised the electorate prior to the general election, with a few billion here and there, came to about £34,000 million, and the people of this country realised that that was simply not on.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, I shall not give way. I must make progress.
The criteria for rate capping mean that the order will affect only 17 authorities. I must draw the attention of the House to the constituency that I represent, the southern part of Nottingham. In the years until May 1987, when both Nottingham city council and the county council were Labour-controlled, I believe that my constituents wished in many ways that they could have been rate-capped. Nottinghamshire county council under Labour increased an 81p in the pound rate precept forecast in 1981 to a precept forecast this year of 253p in the pound. I wish that we were part of the order. Indeed, I think that it is illustrative that in May of last year the city council became Conservative. It does not need to be rate-capped. It has a zero—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate about the boroughs that have been rate-capped. It is legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to draw comparisons, but he must not dwell too heavily on his own constituency.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise if I am dwelling too heavily; I am merely trying to illustrate my support for the principle in general and for the specific order before the House. I only wish that my own authority had been rate-capped, because only the remaining Labour authority of Nottingham county council is increasing the rates in the coming year.
This order is right. The people affected by it will benefit by lower rates. I only wish that there were some mechanism for protecting much of the rest of the country that is not affected by this rate limitation order.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I shall not be sidetracked into alluding to the antics or activities of the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who we in the area feel to have been largely responsible for the adverse rate-capping activity, which in the end will be sufficiently clear to blow back in their faces politically when the time comes for judgment.
Ealing, with 11 of the other rate-capped authorities, refuses to accept the Secretary of State's maximum proposed rate for 1988–89. Ealing's treatment by the Government has been unique in the circumstances that I have already described. Ealing is rate-capped considerably below the level at which many Tory-controlled authorities are spending. The neighbouring borough of Harrow, for example, is currently spending at 6·5 per cent. above the grant-related expenditure assessment.
Ealing's expenditure limit per head will be considerably lower than that of all other London rate-capped boroughs. At £570 per head, it is £88 per head lower than the next lowest. I want the Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, or his Minister, to take these figures on board and try to reply to them this evening,


because they are fundamental to the needs of the people of the London borough of Ealing as a whole and of my end of the borough in particular.
It was freely accepted by the Labour Government, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that my constituency—he will remember visiting it on more than one occasion—had special needs. It seems to me that this has been entirely overlooked in making these calculations. The Government have not taken into consideration Ealing's social needs. The revised offer does nothing to face the particular problems of the borough. This is part of a continuous policy of refusing to accept Ealing as an authority with inner-city characteristics.
As an example, on 1 December 1986, using the Z index to measure urban deprivation, Ealing ranked 10th of the 23 authorities that qualified for permanent status, but it has been refused that status. This is extremely important for the future when we consider the iron necessity of sustaining racial harmony in our borough.
The revised offer meets exactly the Tory opposition's request to bring the rate cap up to the grant-related expenditure and ignores all the arguments put forward by the elected administration. The balance of the council is currently Labour 47, Tory 20 and alliance three. That result, reversing the political line-up on the council, was no accident. The results at the general election in the Ealing, North and Ealing, Acton constituencies have been freely alluded to, but in my constituency I held the ethnic minority vote almost to the identical figure of the two previous general elections.
The revised rate limit will leave Ealing with a budget gap of around £38 million—a massive sum in a single year. Much of the new growth that has been introduced by the current administration since its election in May 1986 is committed and cannot be reversed. Reference has been made to homeless families. Moreover, 140 new teachers have been appointed, and deals have been entered upon—as we heard earlier—for the building of at least 600 new homes. That is a financial commitment, regardless of who started it.
The council does not wish to reverse those and many other achievements. Even if it did, however, it would not be possible to give notice to staff, end leases on property and evict homeless families in time to make the required savings. The sheer impracticality of such action was the principal reason for all-party opposition to the Government's first rate limitation.
The Government's action is designed to force the administration to adopt the spending policies of the previous council—which were rejected by the electorate, when the Tories were soundly defeated at the last local election. The expenditure level now set is exactly equivalent to what the Tories would be spending if they had continued in office with the same policies, and their rate base was the lowest in west London. To achieve that, all new growth would need to be cut.
New and essential services would disappear: for instance, rising-five admissions to schools, involving 80 teachers; restoring middle-school teacher posts, involving 60 teachers; additional curriculum protection posts in high schools, involving 20 teachers; and free school milk in first schools. We would also lose the improved street cleaning service — and it has improved. The council, I am informed, is receiving far fewer complaints. The hon.

Member for, Acton can become equally well informed if he chooses. Officials are receiving far fewer complaints than they did when the service was in the private sector.
Other services that would be lost would be nursery nurses in every first school, involving 65 posts, and additional social services workers to protect children and elderly people at risk, involving 27 posts.
I met a woman the other day who is a teacher. Normally she votes Conservative, and no doubt she voted for the Conservative candidate in Acton. She told me that she was disgusted with the activities of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, whose presence in the Chamber is sadly missed this evening, and who has been peddling some considerable myths. He was admonished by the council's finance director — who, I notice from a copy of his letter, is on Christian terms with the hon. Gentleman, so pally have they been in the past. The finance director wrote:
If you were, as you claim, largely responsible for prompting the Judicial Review procedure, then that action has certainly severely affected the cash flow of the Council, with consequent loss of interest on balances, and will result in a major hike in Ealing's rate arrears problems.
The council has made attempts to secure more equal service provision and employment practices. That is not surprising, in a borough where 25·4 per cent. of the population live in households whose head was born in the New Commonwealth — which, of course, applies substantially to my constituency. But many myths have been peddled about the council's activities. It is accused of alienating the business community. That is not true. Where I live, the rate level is about the same as in Hillingdon. I do not know what the rate is in Cookham, Berkshire, but no doubt we will be enlightened on that point at some other time.
The chamber of commerce has complimented the authority on its consultative process. I have already mentioned the deprivatisation—an awful word—of the cleaning service. We are also told that Ealing is misleading its tenants about their right under the Housing Bill. That, too, is not true. The council is setting those rights out very clearly in accordance with the law. Eventually the electorate will see clearly the difficulties that the Government have placed on the local authority and they will return the Labour party with a handsome majority when they have the opportunity.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to speak shortly on rate capping. I have just one thing to say to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). People in Ealing had a chance to vote on the 65 per cent. increase in rates in Ealing last year: in every constituency in Ealing there was a swing to the Conservatives and the hon. Gentleman's own majority fell from 11,000 to 7,000.
My constituents will be delighted that the Government are controlling local government expenditure and capping high-spending councils because they, as ratepayers and taxpayers, are contributing to the spending of those boroughs. I have a personal interest as a ratepayer in one of the rate-capped boroughs and as a former leader of the opposition in the London borough of Lewisham in seeing that the expenditure of that borough is kept under control.
As a ratepayer in one of the rate-capped boroughs, I know of the anger among ratepayers when they see the


misuse of resources, the high staffing levels in the council and the poor services that they get in return for high rates. They are concerned that the council is not prepared to spend money on things which the ratepayers want, but instead wastes it on activities which are not in their best interests.
In the borough of Lewisham, in which I live, there are 1,331 empty properties. We have the 12th worst record in Britain on rent arrears, with 12 per cent. of the total rent roll outstanding—it was £4·1 million in 1987 and that has now risen to £5·6 million. [Interruption.] I am a ratepayer in the London borough of Lewisham and hon. Gentlemen should listen to what I have to say.
Let me give a few examples of the way in which the local authority wastes money. One cannot get a copy of the local paper in the public libraries there, yet in the foyer there are certain machines which do not work. Until recently, one could not read The Times in the local libraries because it was banned by the local authority. It was only due to the action of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts that they were forced to have The Times back. It is interesting to note that the arts lobby made no protest when The Times was banned from some local council libraries.
The London borough of Lewisham has potholes everywhere because the council does not repair the roads as it should. When I went to register as an elector in the borough it did not manage to put me on the electoral register but had to add me to a supplementary list although my application went in before 10 October. The public library did not even have a list of new voters.
The borough council has an appalling record on street cleaning. There is no rubbish tip. People have to take their household rubbish to the Tory borough of Bromley. Wherever one looks, there is a lack of basic services in Lewisham. Instead, the local council spends its money on things such as the campaign unit which costs £300,000 and a public relations department which has 30 staff. It cuts its grant to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, as we see from the London Evening Standard tonight, yet it increases its grant to gays' organisations. That is how money is wasted in Lewisham.
Lewisham declares itself a nuclear-free zone and puts posters up everywhere telling people, but that makes no difference at all. It has a women's equality unit, a race equality unit, a community affairs unit, a women's committee, a police unit—all wasted public money in the borough.
In addition, I have just had through my letterbox a useful directory with 140 glossy pages — Lewisham women's directory. I thought at first that it might be a list of available women. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a list of Left-wing organisations in the borough of Lewisham.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that every hon. Member has a right to speak, but it does seem to Opposition Members to be an abuse that an Member who represents an authority that is not rate-capped should prevent Members who represent those that are from speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has as much right to speak as anyone else, as long as he relates his remarks to the order, which he is doing.

Mr. Bennett: As a ratepayer in Lewisham, I care about how the money is spent. In the introduction to this little booklet, we find—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member does not pay the rates."] I do pay the rates. The little booklet says—

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps my hon. Friend could moderate his remarks a little, as it is clear that he is annoying Opposition Members. I introduced the order with great aplomb and solemnity, and if my hon. Friend would not say things which so infuriate Opposition Members, the mood of the debate will continue to be tranquil.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will realise that I have a heavy cold and have to speak loudly to be heard.
In the introduction to the booklet, the chair of the women's committee says that the Government are attempting to reintroduce Victorian values, to erode employment rights for women workers and so on. Of course, she signs the introduction "in sisterhood". This glossy pamphlet, produced at the ratepayers' expense, contains only one section of information for ratepayers. In the section on family planning and abortion, the abortion information services are listed but there is no information about Life, the group that tries to help people who want to keep their children. In the section on peace, all the organisations, as the House might imagine, are Left-wing, CND groups. There is no information on Peace Through NATO or any other Right-wing group. The pamphlet, which must have been quite expensive to produce, is published at the ratepayers' expense. It says on the back cover that the pamphlet is what we have all been waiting for.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether any of the literature that he received from Lewisham contains any news about reductions in costs in administration or any reference to fewer people being used in the finance department or any of the sensible things that could have been done to help the people in Lewisham?

Mr. Bennett: It does not. In fact, I can quote Dave Sullivan, the Labour leader of the council, as reported in the South London Press on 10 July 1987:
Although we are spending more on services and employing more people, there has been little discernible increase in satisfaction.
On the same day on which the glossy pamphlet came through my door, I read in my copy of my local paper, the Lewisham and Sydenham Comet:
Libraries forced to shut to save cash.
I have described how Lewisham spends its money. I commend the order to the House as a sensible and welcome move to protect ratepayers and taxpayers.

Mr. Bernie Grant: As an hon. Member representing a genuinely rate-capped authority, I am disgusted by the shower on the Conservative Benches. They are wasting the time of the House when we should be discussing the rate limitation order, which is spiteful and vindictive to the people in my borough. For the fourth year running, the London borough of Haringey has been rate-capped and this year we are asked to cut rates by 10 per cent.
Some of the things that have caused us to incur additional expenditure have absolutely nothing to do with


the London borough of Haringey. They are not our responsibility. First, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 was passed after long disputes between the trade unions and the Government. As a result of that agreement, Haringey will have to pay about £3·328 million more than we budgeted for. Hon. Members have alluded to the problem of homelessness. Homelessness will cost us about £3·25 million more but that is something over which we have no control. The North London waste authority, which was set up by the Government after they abolished the GLC has told Haringey that its levy will be increased by 35 per cent. over the 1987–88 rate. That will cost the borough about £516,000. Time-expired urban aid projects will cost the borough some £418,000.
All this extra expenditure is a direct result of agreements or requirements placed on the borough by the Government, yet the Government refuse to increase the expenditure for the borough. We should add to that the fact that, during the past year, we have sustained a loss against GREA of £12·526 million.
Our borough has a number of problems. On the Z index of deprivation of the Department of the Environment, Haringey ranks sixth. However, on just one of the variables used, unemployment in Haringey was 10·7 per cent. when the indices were set up. It is now 14·1 per cent. Under the Department of Education and Science's cluster analysis, 14 per cent. of children in Haringey received free school meals in 1982, but that figure is now 24·4 per cent. There are many other poverty indicators relating to my borough of which the Secretary of State has not taken account.
Finally, a delegation from our borough went to see the Minister of State to try to gain an increase in the expenditure limit of Haringey council. After 22 minutes it was shown the door and told point blank that Haringey would not get a penny more from this miserable Government. It is a disgrace that the Government can perpetrate this con trick not only on the people of Haringey, but on the whole country. However, I advise them that the chickens will come home to roost in the poll tax when people will see, once and for all, what the Government are doing to their liberties.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: In some ways the debate has been interesting, but there are times when the House can make an utter fool of itself. To spend only two and three quarter hours dealing with the detailed effects of local public expenditure on 4 million of our fellow citizens — dealing with about £2 billion-plus of expenditure—is an absolute farce. I advise the House that it will not make good television. Whether or not people outside are rate-capped, they will not understand how on earth the House of Commons — 650 elected Members — can sit in this place, talk and appear to make expert decisions about the detailed expenditure of local authorities. It beggars belief. We are simply not competent to do it. We never will be, and we should not even attempt to do it.
Many hon. Members have spoken for all the world as if we never have a local election. I advise Conservative Members that it is not that we do not have any simple answers. In the short time available I would not, in any event, attempt simple answers, and indeed, I should not attempt that if the time were longer, but we have repeatedly challenged the Government and repeatedly

offered them an easy passage through the House for a Bill to legislate for annual elections in all areas of local government, yet they will not do it. The Government talk as though local elections do not exist.
As I listened to my hon. Friends and looked around at my hon. Friends who sought to speak, I wondered where, behind me, Tory councils were represented. Of course, there are none. The Labour party is repeatedly returned to power when there are local elections. We sincerely wish that there were local elections in, for example, the London boroughs every year and not just once ever four years.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose—

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way.
We are prepared to meet that challenge.
Several of my hon. Friends have said that the Tory Government desire to ignore local government. Of course, if local government is of a different political complexion from central Government, local government seems a bad thing. However, it is not a bad thing to have local government and national Government of different political complexions. That was one of the reasons for having local government in a unitary state—to divide up the political power. If the political power is not divided up but simply resides at the centre, that leads to a dictatorship. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot give way, I have to give the Minister a chance to reply. I hope that the Minister will give way, as he will have more time.

Mr. Cohen: Why should he give way?

Mr. Rooker: The Minister should give way because he has to answer questions.
Hon. Members must ask themselves whether rate capping makes for better local government — [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]. If Ministers think that they know everything and have great deal of confidence, I can give them a warning shot. What will happen when the poll tax legislation becomes law? What are the implication of national poll tax capping? The Department of the Environment does not always get it right.
There are three local authorities on the order for which the figures set by the Government were subsequently changed. They were changed after discussions and representations, but the Government had promoted the original figures on the basis that they were correct. For Ealing council, which has been often mentioned by two hon. Members, the figure went up from 125p to 167p. The Government must have thought that the figure was right when they promoted 125p. Where are the guarantees that they will get it right in the poll tax-capping era? The figures make us wary about what will happen.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made it crystal clear when he said that the reduction in the rate support grant is designed to switch more of the burden of local spending onto local people. That is absolutely true.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He mentioned me.

Mr. Rooker: I mentioned the hon. Gentleman. I wrote down the words that he used, and he can check the record in Hansard. It was an honest statement. The hon. Gentleman clearly made that statement. That is a consequence of what is happening.
The rates have gone up in many areas, as there have been cuts in the rate support grant. It is a moot point whether central Government should be funding two thirds of local authority expenditure, but it is not a point that we can debate tonight. It is also a moot point whether the figure should be as high as that. We do not accept that it should be less than 50 per cent. and falling, as it is now. That causes other problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about Liverpool. Whatever view one may take about Liverpool and its current and past difficulties, its population is about 500,000, it has an infrastructure to service about 750,000 people but an economy that will support only 250,000 people. That is a recipe for disaster for the people in Liverpool. There is no way in which one can juggle the figures to make sense of that equation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) reminded us that many of the authorities, perhaps the vast majority of them, are partnership authorities. It was wrong to say that if one adds the partnership money to the rate support grant the percentage will be about the same. The needs of those areas would mean that the percentage should be higher and not the same. I can assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that in many areas the cuts in the partnership money have only exacerbated the cuts in rate support grant to make a bad situation worse. That rightly has been described as the ugly face of Toryism. The Government ignore completely the situation in Tower Hamlets, which is a London borough with a unique problem over housing homeless families. It has specified the exact amount of money that it knows it needs as £21 million.
It is ridiculous for the House to try to legislate for the detailed expenditure of the local authorities. Four million fellow citizens are affected by the rate-capped authorities. Frankly, locally elected councillors know a lot better than us about the needs of their areas and they are more responsible so long as they face the consequences of their decisions at the ballot box. That is why we should have annual elections. That principle applies to Labour or Conservative councillors. They are the locally elected people and that is where the battle on such expenditure decisions should be fought. They should not be fought on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the custodian of parliamentary democracy and you represent the rights of Back Benchers. There are a number of Back Benchers who represent rate-capped authorities and they have important points to make in respect of those authorities. How can it be right that those hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a great sadness that not every hon. Gentleman who wishes to be called every day can be.

Mr. Tony Banks: They represent rate-capped authorities.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am sure that there are many hon. Members who regret that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was unable to explain why he felt that the massive rate increase in Waltham Forest this year was justified.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Chope: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Chope: rose—

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if the Minister does not give way he must not persist.

Mr. Chope: rose—

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does that once more, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Chope: rose—

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I now tell the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Cohen: I refuse to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not obey the Chair, I shall have to take further action. I order him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Cohen: My constituents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance. If he does not leave the Chamber I shall be forced to name him.

Mr. Cohen: My constituents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Mr. Harry Cohen.

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Harry Cohen be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 73.

Division No. 188]
[9.53 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Alton, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Benyon, W.


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashdown, Paddy
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes






Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hawkins, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Holt, Richard


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
McCrindle, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Durant, Tony
Miscampbell, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Farr, Sir John
Neale, Gerrard


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Forman, Nigel
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Foster, Derek
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Freeman, Roger
Patten, John (Oxford W)


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Fry, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gardiner, George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Portillo, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Price, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Raffan, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Redwood, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)





Robertson, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rooker, Jeff
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rost, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew
Thornton, Malcolm


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Straw, Jack



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Litherland, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKelvey, William


Bermingham, Gerald
McTaggart, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Madden, Max


Bradley, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Caborn, Richard
Morley, Elliott


Callaghan, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Parry, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Patchett, Terry


Clay, Bob
Pendry, Tom


Clelland, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ruddock, Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Salmond, Alex


Cousins, Jim
Sedgemore, Brian


Cox, Tom
Short, Clare


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cummings, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Steinberg, Gerry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Turner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Flynn, Paul
Wall, Pat


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Galloway, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Gordon, Mildred
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Graham, Thomas
Wilson, Brian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Wray, Jimmy


Hinchliffe, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hood, Jimmy



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mrs. Alice Mahon and


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ms. Diane Abbott.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Harry Cohen be suspended from the service of the House.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [12 February]:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 210.

Division No. 189]
[10.07 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Favell, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert





Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thorne, Neil


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Buckley, George J.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)






Clay, Bob
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Henderson, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Cummings, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, Stuart


Cunningham, Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Darling, Alistair
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dobson, Frank
Ingram, Adam


Douglas, Dick
John, Brynmor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lambie, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lamond, James


Eastham, Ken
Leadbitter, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Leighton, Ron


Fatchett, Derek
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fearn, Ronald
Lewis, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Litherland, Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Livsey, Richard


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Flannery, Martin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Flynn, Paul
McAllion, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Foulkes, George
Macdonald, Calum A.


Fraser, John
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Galbraith, Sam
McKelvey, William


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McTaggart, Bob


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gordon, Mildred
Marek, Dr John


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)





Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruddock, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Salmond, Alex


Martlew, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliott
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Straw, Jack


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wigley, Dafydd


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Worthington, Tony


Robertson, George
Wray, Jimmy


Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Noes


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Alun Michael.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

Abernant Colliery

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the Adjournment. This comes out of the time for the Adjournment.

Mr. Hind: It is just one simple point. Is it appropriate that an hon. Member should deliberately flout the rules of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with. I do not think that points of order arise from it.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I appreciate the opportunity to raise the matter of Abernant colliery. The recent announcement by British Coal that it intends to close the colliery and Wernos washery is a severe blow, not merely because of the loss of jobs in an area which at present has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom, but because the hopes of the whole Welsh—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who are not staying for the Adjournment kindly leave the House quietly?

Mr. Coleman: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the closure is a blow to the employment prospects of an area with high unemployment, as well as to the Welsh anthracite coal industry. About 800 men will become unemployed as a result of the closure.
I am well aware of a meeting with the men at Abernant this week, when the previous decision to fight the closure was set aside. I understand clearly the reason for it—that the £5,000 severance money on offer will not be available after March. No one can expect men to pass up such a sum of money for something uncertain. The Minister should reconsider the matter. I ask him to urge British Coal to extend the time limit for this payment, as I want to demonstrate that the closure of Abernant is not in the national interest.
South Wales is the only area in Britain where anthracite is mined. It is the prince among coals, being naturally smokeless, and it is much sought after by merchants and domestic consumers alike. It is perennially in short supply. In 1987, this country imported more than 500,000 tons of anthracite, much of that at inflated prices and of relatively poor quality.
In addition, we imported at least as much again of anthracite substitute, often at a higher price. The average cost of anthracite imports was £84 a tonne. That meant that the country's balance of payments was worsened by no less than £42 million last year, simply because the pit closure programme denied men and management in south Wales the opportunity to mine and wash our abundant reserves of anthracite.
For those who believe that all coal is dirty stuff taken by the trainload into English power stations, let me explain about Welsh anthracite. In every respect, it is a clean and prized fuel. It does not pollute the atmosphere with sulphurous and nitrous emissions. It is smokeless and has the highest calorific value by weight of any coal. It is now,

and will be in the future, a real and acceptable alternative to the increasing problem of obtaining imports of natural gas for domestic, industrial and public heating systems.
As our North sea reserves run out in the 1990s, so our dependence on imports of fuel will increase. If we do not secure our capacity to mine anthracite now, we will find ourselves in the same kind of dilemma as we were in after the OPEC price rises in 1973 and 1979. We were paying through the nose for imports of vital fuels. The supply of fuels will be under the control of profiteering foreign cartels.
During the final months of 1987 and the early weeks of this year, the coal industry witnessed an all-out assault on the European anthracite market by Chinese coal exporters. The Chinese Government are allowing their coal agents to undercut prices wherever and whenever they recognise the opportunity to capture a permanent niche in an important market such as the one in this country. They are systematically dumping their coal, and their prices, which do not in any way reflect the costs of production and transportation, to wipe out bulk anthracite production in areas such as south Wales. They wish to create for themselves a captive market within which to generate future profits.
In 1987, Abernant colliery was selling its coal at an average price of £66 a tonne, a price that compares favourably with £84 a tonne of imported anthracite. Its best quality coals are generating revenues of up to £100 a tonne; far higher, for example, than those of any pit on the British mainland outside south Wales.
There is no doubt about Abernant having immediate access to huge reserves of high-quality anthracite. Its reserves are not in question. The immediate problems arise from the fact that the pit is going through a period of upheaval and transition. It is shifting the focus of its production to a new seam and a new underground district, and as a result is forced to carry unusually high development costs at a time when output has necessarily been low. All collieries go through these phases. That is the nature of coalmining, and it will never change. What has changed, however, is the determination of British Coal to secure the permission of, and adequate resources from, the Government to enable it to pass through difficult times in order to secure a good future for collieries such as Abernant.
British Coal is abandoning its sane long-term strategy for the regeneration of the anthracite area, and appears to be going for a crash programme of profit generation by closing its deep mines and proliferating its opencast sites. This policy only brings more hardship to south Wales in the form of unemployment, along with resentment, in the mining communities, which see the landscape ravaged, with very little employment resulting. There is no logic in this. It is a policy that is rejected throughout south Wales, and there is growing evidence of public resistance to it.
The Minister should understand the depth of this resentment. He should recognise the anger, frustration and despondency that these policies are causing in the hearts of men and women as they see mine jobs replaced by a scarred landscape and foreign imports. We shall reap a bitter harvest if the Government do not look again at the need to transform collieries such as Abernant rather than close them. The harvest will be higher fuel prices, anthracite shortages and the generation of resentment at the unnecessary tragedy of unemployment.
I urge the Minister to look again at the decision over Abernant and to put aside short-term financial considerations, which must not be allowed to determine this country's energy future. If he does that, he will help unleash the potential of our coalfields, not destroy them.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for giving me a few minutes of the time available in this Adjournment debate.
The closure of Abernant colliery affects my constituency too, because about one third of the work force in Abernant live in the upper Amman valley in my constituency. Also, British Coal announced that in closing Abernant colliery, it is going to close Wernos washery. It was a bolt out of the blue for the work force there, because for the last 15 years it has been involved in washing the coal from Betws colliery, a new mine in south Wales since the war, so it thought that its future was secure. But British Coal has decided that it will close Wernos washery and use the redundant washery at Abernant. So the knock-on effect for me is about 100 jobs lost in Wernos and the loss of the jobs of about 200 of the Abernant work force who live in my constituency.
The effects in terms of unemployment in the upper Amman valley are quite devastating. Her Majesty's inspector of schools and colleges, a quite neutral source, produced a report on the further education college in Cwmaman, stating that the upper Amman valley has lost virtually all its industrial base, and that unemployment at present is around 50 per cent. overall, with some 36 per cent. of the young people out of work. Those are not my figures; as I say, they are from a neutral source. If the closures go ahead, that 36 per cent. will climb rapidly towards 40 per cent., with the knock-on effect of taking the miners' income out of my constituency.
Over the weekend, I learnt that the average age of the work force in Abernant is, unbelievably, just 32. That is because there have been so many colliery closures in south Wales during the past few years that all the older men have left the industry. When the Government came into office, there were 50 mines there; now there are only 12, and if these closures proceed we shall be down to 10 in a few months. These are young men with families and mortgages, who are anxious to carry on in a working life for the next 20 or 30 years.
When it was first announced, the Abernant miners decided to contest the closure. That was a courageous decision. Unfortunately, when redundancies are involved, the buying of jobs is all too common, and the fight has largely been lost, even in the coal industry. During this week, people have had second thoughts and decided to accept the closure, but the decision has been made under very unfair circumstances. They were told that if they decided quickly — before the end of March — each employee would receive an extra £5,000 in redundancy pay. That is bribery and blackmail.
However, there is a more sinister threat. Young members of the work force have been told that if they go quietly now it will be classed as voluntary redundancy, and there will be a possibility of jobs in other mines. If, however, they delay beyond March, the redundancy may become compulsory. With that kind of threat hanging over them, it is no surprise that the young work force decided to accept the closure.
Even at this late stage, I ask British Coal, through the Minister, to reconsider the decision to close Abernant. The pit is modern; it is only 30 years old. It is not an 18th or 19th century pit. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, it has massive reserves of coal. It has become known in south Wales as "the sleeping giant" because of its enormous reserves of high-quality anthracite. During the past few months, the pit has been producing about 90 per cent. of its target output, and its losses are marginal—about £10 a tonne.
Earlier this week, we heard that in 1992 we would be moving towards a single European market. For better or worse, we shall have an industrial common market with France and Germany. Why cannot that apply to coal? The coal mined in Britain is the cheapest in Europe. If Abernant were anywhere in France, Germany or Belgium, there would be no question of its closure.
I appeal to the Minister to think again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and I pay a sincere tribute to him for raising so forcefully the Abernant colliery closure. In particular, I listened to his well-informed remarks on anthracite. I also listened to what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had to say about the Wernos washery in his constituency.
As hon. Members will know, decisions about the closure of individual units are the management responsibility of British Coal. The colliery review procedure, agreed between British Coal and the mining unions, provides for the detailed scrutiny of proposals for closure through three possible levels—local discussions, national appeals and, finally, the independent review body.
The consultation procedure for considering closure proposals is the most comprehensive consultation process available to any industry. It allows all those with a direct interest in the proposals to bring evidence throughout the three stages of the proceedings, including the independent review body.
The Government are not a party to closure decisions taken by British Coal or to the closure procedure, but I suspect that it would be helpful to the House if t were to fill in a few details of the background of this particular closure.
Abernant colliery, as has been said, has been worked for only 30 years, producing anthracite from the red vein seam. It was completed in 1958 at a cost of £10 million and is one of four anthracite mines in the locality. Output has been sold mainly to the domestic market, to the Aberthaw power station and to the furnacite plant at Aberconwy. A little goes for export.
The pit has consistently made a loss for over 15 years.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Like farmers.

Mr. Spicer: We are not debating farmers tonight, we are talking about the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the coal industry is currently receiving subsidies to the tune of well over £1 billion a year. He conveniently tends to forget that whenever we sit here together. He tends to forget the tremendous support that the industry that he purports to support receives from the Government.
Since 1975, the accumulated losses have totalled over £47 million, with annual losses of £7·6 million and £4·4 million in 1982–83 and 1983–84 respectively. So far this year there has been a loss of £3·7 million
In an attempt to bring the pit into profitability, new heavy duty face equipment was installed in the W20 face in September 1986 at a cost of £3·5 million. The expectation was that with that new investment output could be increased on that face to 1,300 tonnes per day. But— this is the crucial point — because of the pit's difficult geology, production has never achieved half that target.
In April 1987, local management advised the men that new shift patterns were necessary to improve productivity and to enable the pit to continue working. After a one-day strike, subsequent co-operation between the men and management resulted in some improvement in performance, but unfortunately not enough to make the pit viable.
In August 1987, at a further reconvened colliery review meeting, the area director expressed his concern over the continuing losses and a new plan of action was agreed with the aim of making the pit viable. I fully recognise the tremendous efforts that were made over the succeeding four months by men and management, which resulted in a small profit of £22,000 being achieved in November. If that sort of result had been sustained, it could have ensured the future of the pit. Regrettably, there was a considerable decline in output in December and January due to geological disturbances in S14 and W20 faces and an ingress of water into W9.
At a further review meeting on 3 February, the area director said that he could see no justification for keeping the colliery open and would be recommending its closure. In addition, he proposed to close the Wernos washery, because coal washing at Betws colliery could be transferred to the Abernant washery, which had sufficient capacity.
British Coal explained that the severe geological difficulties that had been encountered at Abernant in the current faces and in the future development area would result in continuing losses, which would be unacceptable. The options for slimming down production faces or carrying on development alone had also been examined, but offered no solution. For example, continuing development on its own, using 300 men, would have meant an annual loss of £10 million. It would have taken 12 months for the F1 development face to be ready for production, assuming no geological problems. Even then, the likelihood is that production would have been at a loss.
The area director made it clear that the decision to close the colliery had not been taken lightly and that it had been based entirely on the physical conditions of the pit. In the management's view, there was no prospect of an improvement. I note—this has already been noted in the debate—that the men, too, have recognised the reality of the situation and voted overwhelmingly on 16 February to accept that decision.
I recognise the concern of the hon. Members for Neath and for Carmarthen about the effects of the closure on employment in the Pontardawe area. Therefore, in the remaining few moments, I should like to draw attention to the measures that British Coal is taking to mitigate the

effects of the closure. British Coal has stressed that voluntary redundancy would be offered, or there would be opportunities for those wishing to stay in the industry to transfer to the nearby Betws, Cynheidre or Tower collieries.
The hon. Member for Neath mentioned redundancy terms and the £5,000 lump sum. That sort of offer is not available in any other industry that I can think of. British Coal's redundancy terms are a matter for the corporation itself and reflect its assessment of the needs of the industry. Even without the current £5,000 supplement, the terms are exceptionally generous, providing up to about £35,000 including the statutory lump sum and cash in lieu of concessionary fuel — depending, of course, on age and length of service.
The supplementary £5,000 was introduced by British Coal as a temporary measure to help the industry to adjust to adverse market conditions. It has always been made clear that the supplement would end on the last day of British Coal's financial year — 26 March this year. I understand that the corporation does not intend to extend it beyond that date. However, I assure hon. Members that any mine worker who leaves the industry on redundancy before 26 March will be entitled to the £5,000 supplement.
Finally, we recognise that coal that can be mined commercially is one of our country's great national assets. I suspect that that is something which Opposition Members and the Government have in common. What is more, we believe that coal will be the fuel of choice for the great bulk of our electricity supply industry for many years to come. So long as it is competitive, which we are confident it can be, the coal that the electricity industry will buy will be British. However, it is no secret that British Coal is having to face extremely tough market conditions—much tougher, indeed, than had been expected even a year ago. It is against that background that the corporation has had to decide to close pits such as Abernant. It is also why a total of 16 pits have had to close or merge during this financial year.
I remind the House that Sir Robert Haslam has made it clear that the number of closures needed next year will be quite small, unless there is sustained industrial action. Perhaps I could say direct to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has influence in such matters, that he has it within his grasp to assist the industry in that respect. The chairman is absolutely clear that, unless there is sustained industrial action, which will damage the prospects of those pits which are marginal, the industry has a sustainable and bright future.
The Government are backing British Coal with £2 million every working day, including investment in new pits and new seams, which quite often is forgotten. We would not be doing so if we did not believe that the industry has a bright future. It will have a bright future as long as it faces up squarely to the competitive pressures that are growing daily.
The problem with the Abernant pit is its geology, but the industry as a whole has a bright future and will be able to service our electricity industry as long as those working in it accept that it must be fully modernised and competitive.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.